[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Apr 3 21:03:33 EDT 2018
==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 know how our members are. Yes you are absent from the world of social
media - where the damage is happening. He is opposed to violence against
the state because it doesn't work but goads people to follow the trail of
when it is moral to use guns against these people --- my example of the
joking abortion clinic bomber is apt - language means something and has
consequences.
== 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.==
I do too. That was never the point. You are not doing it in the context
of a school shooting, venomous rhetoric against teachers AND parents, and
then claiming it was a "joke" and goading people to consider just when they
might pick up a gun against these people.
==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.===
It is perfectly a good reason since censure is meant as a WARNING, and
citing the warning when taking the next step is how reality works.
==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.==
Funny that, he keeps making horrid statements and "retracting" them. And
promising more. I think you are being gullible beyond belief and excusing
the inexcusable.l
===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).==
I suspect you don't, since it was never a LITMUS test to begin with no
matter how much we would like it to be so.
>From David Nolan, *Interestingly, most people in the LP do not know why it
was originally placed on membership applications. We did it not because we
believed that we could keep out "bad" people by asking them to sign--after
all, evil people will lie to achieve their ends--but to provide some
evidence that the LP was not a group advocating violent overthrow of the
gov't. In the early 70's, memories of Nixon's "enemies list" and the
McCarthy hearings of the 50's were still fresh in people's minds, and we
wanted to protect ourselves from future witch-hunts.*[2]
<http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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/
>
>
--
--
*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 --------------
==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 know how our members are. Yes you are absent from the world of
social media - where the damage is happening. He is opposed to
violence against the state because it doesn't work but goads people to
follow the trail of when it is moral to use guns against these people
--- my example of the joking abortion clinic bomber is apt - language
means something and has consequences.
== 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.==
I do too. That was never the point. You are not doing it in the
context of a school shooting, venomous rhetoric against teachers AND
parents, and then claiming it was a "joke" and goading people to
consider just when they might pick up a gun against these people.
==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.===
It is perfectly a good reason since censure is meant as a WARNING, and
citing the warning when taking the next step is how reality works.
==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.==
Funny that, he keeps making horrid statements and "retracting" them.
And promising more. I think you are being gullible beyond belief and
excusing the inexcusable.l
===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).==
I suspect you don't, since it was never a LITMUS test to begin with no
matter how much we would like it to be so.
From David Nolan, Interestingly, most people in the LP do not know why
it was originally placed on membership applications. We did it not
because we believed that we could keep out "bad" people by asking them
to sign--after all, evil people will lie to achieve their ends--but to
provide some evidence that the LP was not a group advocating violent
overthrow of the gov't. In the early 70's, memories of Nixon's "enemies
list" and the McCarthy hearings of the 50's were still fresh in
people's minds, and we wanted to protect ourselves from future
witch-hunts.^[1][2]
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild <[2]starchild at lp.org> wrote:
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
[3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]www.VoteVohra.com
> [5][6][9]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
> References
>
> 1. [2][7][10]http://mewe.com/
> 2. [3]mailto:[8][11]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 3. tel:317-850-0726
> 4. [4][9][12]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 5. [5]mailto:[10][13]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> References
> 1. mailto:[11][14]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 2. [12][15]http://mewe.com/
> 3. mailto:[13][16]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>
> 4. [14][17]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 5. mailto:[15][18]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:[19]starchild at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[20]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 3. [21]http://mewe.com/
> 4. mailto:[22]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 5. [23]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 6. mailto:[24]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 7. [25]http://mewe.com/
> 8. mailto:[26]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 9. [27]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 10. mailto:[28]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 11. mailto:[29]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 12. [30]http://mewe.com/
> 13. mailto:[31]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 14. [32]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 15. mailto:[33]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 16. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 17. [35]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
- [36]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [37]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. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
2. mailto:starchild at lp.org
3. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
4. mailto:starchild at lp.org
5. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
6. http://mewe.com/
7. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
8. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
9. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
10. http://mewe.com/
11. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
12. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
13. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
14. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
15. http://mewe.com/
16. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
18. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
19. mailto:starchild at lp.org
20. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
21. http://mewe.com/
22. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
23. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
24. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
25. http://mewe.com/
26. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
27. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
28. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
29. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
30. http://mewe.com/
31. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
32. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
33. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
34. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
35. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
36. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list