[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
Alex Merced (Region 8 Alt)
alex.merced at lp.org
Tue Apr 3 21:29:23 EDT 2018
While only an Alternate, I would vote yes. The reasons why articulated particularly well by everyone else who has already chimed in.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 8:37 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/
>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list