[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
Starchild
starchild at lp.org
Tue Apr 3 20:37:45 EDT 2018
Caryn Ann,
When you say "He defended the morality of violence against all 'enemy collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I don't know to which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know if I'd interpret them as you apparently are.
I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense or defense of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think non-pacifist libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think it's necessarily a good idea, or the path I want to follow.
> "Given that this body already censured him using that same language..."
The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having already faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not to rely on that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a lot like double jeopardy.
And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable. If he hadn't retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to resign, and if he didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion for suspension.
I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a strong supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be strengthened (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as scoring some minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership positions in the party).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
@StarchildSF
*Apologies for the use of CAPS for emphasis, but italics and boldface still don't work on this list since our switch to new email servers.
On Apr 3, 2018, at 3:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos 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 <[1]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][2]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][3]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][4]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][5]www.VoteVohra.com
> [5][6]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
> References
>
> 1. [2][7]http://mewe.com/
> 2. [3]mailto:[8]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 3. tel:317-850-0726
> 4. [4][9]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 5. [5]mailto:[10]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> References
> 1. mailto:[11]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 2. [12]http://mewe.com/
> 3. mailto:[13]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>
> 4. [14]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 5. mailto:[15]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
> - [16]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, [17]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:starchild at lp.org
> 2. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> 3. http://mewe.com/
> 4. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 5. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 6. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 7. http://mewe.com/
> 8. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 9. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 10. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 11. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> 12. http://mewe.com/
> 13. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 14. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 15. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 16. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 17. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list