[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Apr 3 18:33:22 EDT 2018
Alicia, and you can let me know privately, I would be very interested in
hearing what wording you would have preferred. Sadly if this doesn't pass,
I predict Arvin will once again tell everyone to hold his beer. I was
right last time.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> Starchild--
>
> ==I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
> you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle,===
>
> Because you fall into the trap of the game of saying something different
> later. He defended the morality of violence against all "enemy
> collaborators" such as teachers and school boards.
>
> == yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
> accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
> brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute" appears
> to take it as a given==
>
> Given that this body already censured him using that same language, it IS
> a given.
>
>
> ==And does anyone really believe that an
> ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is enough to
> "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
> entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.==
>
> I do. The Party founders did. Your statements are in ignorance of the
> history of WHY we have that pledge to begin with.
>
> == What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
> routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a far
> greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of party
> members and members of society alike from State violence, than does
> someone occasionally going too far.==
>
> I don't have a scale of what harms more, but talking about an
> exaggeration, I routinely rail against failure to take strongly libertarian
> positions. This is not an either/or.
>
> But your vote is your vote - you think a wink/wink joke about violence in
> the whole context of his rhetoric is acceptable. Let's say a pro-lifers
> routinely called doctors murderers and accessories to murder (or let's say
> - enemy collaborators) and then "joked" about bombing an abortion clinic
> --- how would that fly? Like a lead zeppelin. Just like this does.
>
> Once again we prove that freedom must mean that bullies get to walk all
> over people, conduct outrageous acts, and there is no will to
> disassociate. The LNC is the biggest proof that voluntary government will
> not protect the vulnerable - we can't even take care of our own problems.
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Arvin,
>>
>> As I wrote in a previous message here, my reading of your social media
>> post is that it was over the line, and unlike any of your previous
>> posts, actually did appear to advocate for the initiation of force.
>> Since the post at that time had apparently not been made public, and
>> was not made in an LP forum, it was my hope that we would not risk
>> damaging the party's reputation by officially taking it up here and
>> thereby making it public and an official party matter, but rather call
>> for your resignation as individuals.
>>
>> While I don't disagree with you as far as the moral � as opposed to
>> practical � justification for defensive violence against individuals
>> who are causing aggression, not all government personnel fit into that
>> category. There are Libertarian Party members and others serving on
>> school boards who are fighting to reduce aggression, not increase it,
>> and an implicit sanction of indiscriminate violence against such a
>> broad category of people in government would amount to a willingness to
>> sacrifice such individuals as "collateral damage" in contravention of
>> their individual rights.
>>
>> However, you have disavowed and apologized for the post, and said
>> enough here about routinely arguing against the use of violence against
>> the State and for the use of minimal force and the nonviolent approach
>> advocated by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, to make that
>> disavowal credible. If anyone attempts to use this to attack the LP,
>> now that it has been officially raised in a motion here, they will have
>> to overcome the fact that this was a personal post by one LP official
>> who subsequently retracted it and apologized for his words as having
>> been a joke in poor taste.
>>
>> While I wish you would better think some of these things through before
>> posting, I don't see a personal post by an LNC member on a social media
>> site, not in the name of the party, which the member has clearly
>> retracted and apologized for as having been an inappropriate joke, as
>> sufficient cause for involuntary removal from office. Mere poor
>> judgment in the matter of deciding what to post via one's personal
>> social media accounts seems less important to me on the whole than poor
>> judgment in deciding how to vote on substantive party matters, and if I
>> had to rank each member of the LNC on that basis, you would not come
>> out at the bottom. I'm also mindful of your apparent state of mind,
>> which again seems to reflect an excess of healthy libertarian sentiment
>> against the aggression and abuses of the State, rather than a lack of
>> it. I accept your retraction and apology.
>>
>> From the wording of the motion for suspension, it appears that some
>> members of this body are again seeking your involuntary removal �
>> this
>> time without the due process of holding a meeting � on account of
>> previous posts for which you have already been censured.
>>
>> Furthermore I believe the wording of the motion is sloppy and contains
>> inaccuracies. I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
>> you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle,
>> yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
>> accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
>> brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute" appears
>> to take it as a given that you've repeatedly acted in contravention of
>> this as well as other unnamed principles. It is also inaccurate to
>> speak of you bringing the principles of the Libertarian Party into
>> disrepute. Bringing a group's adherence to principles into disrepute is
>> not the same as bringing the principles themselves into disrepute. The
>> principles stand regardless of how often or how egregiously members of
>> society violate them. And does anyone really believe that an
>> ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is enough to
>> "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
>> entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.
>>
>> What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
>> routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a far
>> greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of party
>> members and members of society alike from State violence, than does
>> someone occasionally going too far.
>>
>> I vote no on the motion.
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>>
>> ((( starchild )))
>>
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> [1]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> (415) 625-FREE
>>
>> @StarchildSF
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Arvin Vohra 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. [2]http://mewe.com/
>> 2. [3]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 3. tel:317-850-0726
>> 4. [4]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 5. [5]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 2. http://mewe.com/
>> 3. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 4. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 5. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
--
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
Alicia, and you can let me know privately, I would be very interested
in hearing what wording you would have preferred. Sadly if this
doesn't pass, I predict Arvin will once again tell everyone to hold his
beer. I was right last time.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Starchild--
==I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression
Principle,===
Because you fall into the trap of the game of saying something
different later. He defended the morality of violence against all
"enemy collaborators" such as teachers and school boards.
== yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute"
appears
to take it as a given==
Given that this body already censured him using that same language, it
IS a given.
==And does anyone really believe that an
ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is enough
to
"endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.==
I do. The Party founders did. Your statements are in ignorance of the
history of WHY we have that pledge to begin with.
== What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a far
greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of party
members and members of society alike from State violence, than does
someone occasionally going too far.==
I don't have a scale of what harms more, but talking about an
exaggeration, I routinely rail against failure to take strongly
libertarian positions. This is not an either/or.
But your vote is your vote - you think a wink/wink joke about violence
in the whole context of his rhetoric is acceptable. Let's say a
pro-lifers routinely called doctors murderers and accessories to murder
(or let's say - enemy collaborators) and then "joked" about bombing an
abortion clinic --- how would that fly? Like a lead zeppelin. Just
like this does.
Once again we prove that freedom must mean that bullies get to walk all
over people, conduct outrageous acts, and there is no will to
disassociate. The LNC is the biggest proof that voluntary government
will not protect the vulnerable - we can't even take care of our own
problems.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Starchild <[2]starchild at lp.org> wrote:
Arvin,
As I wrote in a previous message here, my reading of your social
media
post is that it was over the line, and unlike any of your
previous
posts, actually did appear to advocate for the initiation of
force.
Since the post at that time had apparently not been made public,
and
was not made in an LP forum, it was my hope that we would not
risk
damaging the party's reputation by officially taking it up here
and
thereby making it public and an official party matter, but rather
call
for your resignation as individuals.
While I don't disagree with you as far as the moral � as
opposed to
practical � justification for defensive violence against
individuals
who are causing aggression, not all government personnel fit into
that
category. There are Libertarian Party members and others serving
on
school boards who are fighting to reduce aggression, not increase
it,
and an implicit sanction of indiscriminate violence against such
a
broad category of people in government would amount to a
willingness to
sacrifice such individuals as "collateral damage" in
contravention of
their individual rights.
However, you have disavowed and apologized for the post, and said
enough here about routinely arguing against the use of violence
against
the State and for the use of minimal force and the nonviolent
approach
advocated by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, to make that
disavowal credible. If anyone attempts to use this to attack the
LP,
now that it has been officially raised in a motion here, they
will have
to overcome the fact that this was a personal post by one LP
official
who subsequently retracted it and apologized for his words as
having
been a joke in poor taste.
While I wish you would better think some of these things through
before
posting, I don't see a personal post by an LNC member on a social
media
site, not in the name of the party, which the member has clearly
retracted and apologized for as having been an inappropriate
joke, as
sufficient cause for involuntary removal from office. Mere poor
judgment in the matter of deciding what to post via one's
personal
social media accounts seems less important to me on the whole
than poor
judgment in deciding how to vote on substantive party matters,
and if I
had to rank each member of the LNC on that basis, you would not
come
out at the bottom. I'm also mindful of your apparent state of
mind,
which again seems to reflect an excess of healthy libertarian
sentiment
against the aggression and abuses of the State, rather than a
lack of
it. I accept your retraction and apology.
From the wording of the motion for suspension, it appears that
some
members of this body are again seeking your involuntary removal
� this
time without the due process of holding a meeting � on account
of
previous posts for which you have already been censured.
Furthermore I believe the wording of the motion is sloppy and
contains
inaccuracies. I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression
Principle,
yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute"
appears
to take it as a given that you've repeatedly acted in
contravention of
this as well as other unnamed principles. It is also inaccurate
to
speak of you bringing the principles of the Libertarian Party
into
disrepute. Bringing a group's adherence to principles into
disrepute is
not the same as bringing the principles themselves into
disrepute. The
principles stand regardless of how often or how egregiously
members of
society violate them. And does anyone really believe that an
ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is
enough to
"endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.
What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a
far
greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of
party
members and members of society alike from State violence, than
does
someone occasionally going too far.
I vote no on the motion.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
[1][3]RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
@StarchildSF
On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Arvin Vohra 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][4]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][5]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][6]www.VoteVohra.com
[5][7]VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
References
1. [2][8]http://mewe.com/
2. [3]mailto:[9]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
3. tel:317-850-0726
4. [4][10]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
5. [5]mailto:[11]VoteVohra at gmail.com
References
1. mailto:[12]RealReform at earthlink.net
2. [13]http://mewe.com/
3. mailto:[14]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
4. [15]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
5. mailto:[16]VoteVohra at gmail.com
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
- [17]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [18]Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
- [19]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [20]Libertarian Party of Colorado
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
References
1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
2. mailto:starchild at lp.org
3. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
4. http://mewe.com/
5. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
6. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
7. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
8. http://mewe.com/
9. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
10. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
11. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
12. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
13. http://mewe.com/
14. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
15. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
16. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
17. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
18. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
19. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
20. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list