[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Thu Apr 5 09:19:38 EDT 2018
Starchild it squares with my experience and that of hundreds of other
members, including many radicals.
As far as disavowing the underlying message I do not believe he has. What
he gives with one hand he takes away with the other- that is why several
people here voted YES after the disavowal.
Going back to my Contrapoints example with the white nationalists (heck we
can even go back to examples in our own midst vis a vis Invictus) - people
play games. The modern fascistic types hiding in the LP deny it but the
full breadth of their posting belies that assertion.
With AV’s self-admittedly violent rhetoric the disavowals ring off key and
certainly would ring off key to any attempt by the state to paint us as
fomenting violence- that IS the purpose of the Pledge.
We do not “hunt” the government.
We do not view fellow victims en masse as enemy collobators and parents as
leeches. While *he* today may not *personally* go on a school board
shooting spree in the very same statement he urged his readers to consider
it by pushing the idea of violent revolt. Yes that is against the Pledge.
Might violent defense one day and in some circumstance be justified? That
is what the 2A is about. But the rhetoric and method and animus of our
VC’s posts tell a different story than his disavowal. That rhetoric
inspires McVeighs - who - lest we forget claimed he was a libertarian
defending against the state.
Revolution is NOT what we are about. Our mission is to avoid it not act in
such a way to foment it. It is a hoary possibility that should be
approached by officers of this party with heavy hearts of gravity- not
jokes about killing the mailman (enemy collobator amiright?)
I think many of us see the forest clearly (and from across wide factional
divides) and our VC is distracting people of good faith such as yourself
with a few trees.
It is a cumulative case of behavior that belies the disavowal and I used
the prior censure purposefully - it is not just this alleged joke. That is
part of a longgggg pattern.
My pointing out of the nature and purpose of humour and why we find things
funny is important. And some things apologies simply don’t cover. There
are consequences. It is not just the last incident.
I would vote for ten alternate removal motions that were not veiled
anti-radical purge statements if anyone if the no’s would be a yes with
different wording.
The censure did not work. He laughed it off. This is the next step to end
this circus.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:55 AM Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann,
>
> No worries about not being able to take my call, I know you do an
> incredible amount of work for the party and certainly don't begrudge you
> your family time. And I appreciate your kind words about my creativity and
> writing ability. I think the latter can be rather hit-or-miss – I don't
> always feel particularly articulate, and sometimes I can just be lazy or
> sloppy. Your essay below is very well written by the way, even though the
> tone is informal.
>
> I'm not aware of ContraPoints, although I do consume a wide
> variety of media from different viewpoints both left and right as well as
> libertarian, as I agree it's good to be familiar with the arguments for
> their respective brands of statism. Will try to check that out.
>
> I can look at pages on the "F" site now, if someone sends me a
> link, I just can't post there without an account. Aside from my desire not
> to contribute to the problem of society entrusting certain companies with
> too much power, the problem with creating a dummy account on that site in
> order to see what Libertarians are saying there is that people would
> naturally want to know who I am before friending me, and that process of
> getting into everybody's friend networks to see the conversations would
> naturally take some time. Meanwhile, as it became commonly known among
> members of our community that Account X was me under a different name, it
> seems inevitable that someone not wanting my voice there for whatever
> reason(s) would anonymously report me and get it shut down.
>
>
> > ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==
> > Then you conceded my point.
>
>
> You seem to be under the impression that I was trying to say it
> was designed as a litmus test. That's not what I was trying to say. I was
> recognizing that it IS a kind of litmus test, but that we could use a
> better one.
>
>
> > He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.
> That is the charitable reading. Or you are saying he passive aggressively
> just said I am sorry you are such crybabies.
>
> I think there's a difference between walking back specific
> phrasing that caused offense, and disavowing the underlying message that
> readers would naturally get from a post, which I'm not aware of him doing
> until now.
>
> But to get to the heart of this. While there are various
> individual points of your argument with which I am in agreement, the
> overall caricature you paint of Arvin just doesn't square with the
> observations of my own senses – the talk of "mind games", "gaslighting",
> "bad actors", "trolls", "edgelords" (this sounds like something out of a
> sci-fi novel!), posts that "ooze with glee", "enjoy(ing) what (he) put(s)
> others through", etc. – none of this accords with my personal sense of the
> individual I've come to know during two terms on the LNC.
>
> I'm not saying YOU are trying to "gaslight" us; I don't doubt your
> sincerity. But take a step back and think about the kind of person that
> Arvin would have to be, in order for all the stuff you're saying about him
> to be true, and (for everyone) ask yourselves whether that's really the
> same person we've known on this committee.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> RealReform at earthlink.net
> (415) 625-FREE
> @StarchildSF
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 12:12 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> > Starchild, we are not going to change each other's minds. I could not
> > take your calls as I was recording live for the LP. Also honestly, I
> > am not sacrificing any more family time for Arvin. Any time I do will
> > be getting on the phone with members who now think the LP is not for
> > them - that non-edgelords need not apply. Yes, I get those calls.
> > ==Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". ...When you
> > refer to
> > "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking
> > about?==
> > How members are taking it. On Facebeast.
> > == Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts other
> > than
> > what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not parents.==
> > Starchild at this point it is incumbent on you to get a dummy account
> > and research and see for yourself.
> > ==The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the language
> > given then as justification for censure, and now uses that language
> > as
> > justification for suspension (which was previously rejected).===
> > That is what citing is. And it was rejected as not enough THEN, so
> > censure, in which the next step is removal. That is the progression of
> > professional discipline.
> > ==The only
> > thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
> > ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he has
> > disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted during
> > the intervening weeks).===
> > First Starchild, I think you may be aware of the YouTuber
> > ContraPoints. Excellent liberal commentator for people to get out of
> > the Milo echo chamber and hear good liberal defenses. I don't agree
> > with her, but I respect her immensely. She talks about the difficulty
> > of dealing with ethno nationalists - who say all the fashy things but
> > then deny it. There comes a point where it is a body of evidence. The
> > analogy here is to how gaslighting works NOT any idea that anyone here
> > is fashy (OBVIOUSLY NO ONE HERE IS) - just showing how these things
> > work and how Libertarians are often hoodwinked. I can send you the
> > link to her video - it is fantastic, and I think you would love her as
> > a person. She reminds me of you with her creative genius. Back to
> > Arvin, It was more than ill-advised, it was inexcusable for a leader of
> > the LP. Just like it would be inexcusable for a leader of the ADL to
> > make a "get into the ovens" "joke." Apologies and alleged disavowing
> > (many many people do not believe it because again, he goes on to talk
> > about WHEN it is acceptable in the same sentence - taking away any
> > genuineness or utility of any disavowal and is why I don't buy his
> > later disavowal either - I just don't. I'm a wise old bird when it
> > comes to these mind games) do not make everything okay. This is
> > repeated behaviour and it is enough. I was once in an abusive
> > marriage. Yes he apologized. Many times. But there came a time when
> > it was enough. And my ex genuinely wanted to do better (or convinced
> > me he did) - Arvin has promised us he will be worse. His words ring
> > hollow particularly when coupled with a call to defend taking up arms
> > and lethal force.
> > ==Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
> > apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he stood
> > by
> > the basic positions taken therein.===
> > He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.
> > That is the charitable reading. Or you are saying he passive
> > aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies. He is
> > standing by this basic position too - it is not very utilitarian to
> > shoot up school boards and to HIM it may not be proportional - but you
> > know, they are the enemy and their collaborators. You simply have to
> > read carefully. Its in the very post here - why do you think two
> > people changed to YES - AFTER reading his "defense." Because it read
> > like a fertilizer bomb. Our words have impact. I watched some
> > specials on what drove McVeigh to his horrific act - mixing bad
> > government with reckless rhetoric and a healthy dose of nuttiness and a
> > big kaboom comes out. Free speech is not consequenceless speech. That
> > girl who goaded her male friend over text to just kill himself and he
> > did - she didn't kill him. He still had agency. It is a danger of
> > free speech, but it doesn't make her speech noble or good. Our words -
> > as leaders - have influence. We took these positions knowing that.
> > Libertarians believe in responsibility. Part of that responsibility is
> > that you don't as a leader in the third largest political party in the
> > US in a politically violent time, OVER THE BODIES OF DEAD TEENS, "joke"
> > about murdering school board officials - when we run school board
> > officials!!! By Arvin's logic, we are enemy collaborators. Many
> > anarchists of his POV think so. This anarchist does not.
> > ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==
> > Then you conceded my point. It was put in place as a barrier, a
> > protection, to OUR MEMBERS. Which our Vice Chair blithely "joked
> > away." Not acceptable. Not okay. And another note ends up in many
> > members files due to Arvin. Its all fun and games until shit gets
> > real. He either was so obtuse and tone deaf to make such an
> > inappropriate "joke" (coupled with his past inappropriate comments
> > about preferring that little girls get impregnated by much older men
> > with jobs rather than an equally confused kid) OR he meant it. OR
> > potentially a combination of both. "Jokes" are often "funny" to the
> > people who make them because there is some small grain of truth in them
> > to the maker and to the audience. We laugh at inappropriate
> > stereotypes because there ARE some people like that (the problem is
> > making a whole GROUP like that and making neutral characteristics to be
> > malignant or bad when it is just people being people). To wit, there
> > are a lot of radical leftist feminists with pink hair. I am not one of
> > them. But people laugh when that joke is made towards me. It is funny
> > because here is some truth. And then I get an opportunity to show how
> > stupid collectivization is. What kernel of truth did Arvin find SO
> > FUNNY? That he juxtaposed it with the murder of children!?:! As a
> > political leader????? There are people who make "rape jokes." I
> > question what in the person exists for them to even consider that a
> > "joke" unless it was to show some underlying truth through dark evil.
> > What underlying truth is there in this? Not to mention that THIS IS A
> > PATTERN. Arvin has had for months - quite seriously - made posts that
> > follow the pattern of Bad Idea: XXXX, Good Idea: XXXXX or more
> > frequently Bad Idea XXXX, Worse Idea XXXXX. So he then goes and says
> > Bad Idea school shootings. Good Idea School Board Shootings, and no
> > everyone is supposed to magically know that THIS one was not serious.
> > That he broke character. (it also troubles me that he admits he
> > wouldn't say that on FB but WeMe (or whatever silly name it is) is
> > edgier so its all okay..... so perhaps helicopter ride jokes are also
> > okay, you just gotta be down with the Hoppe dudes to make them).
> > Why do we find it so ironic when the fundamentalist theocrat who rails
> > against gay people is found in bed with another of the same sex. Not
> > because we think he should not have the right or any moral judgment
> > about the intimate act. We rightly note the hypocrisy of a person who
> > is part of a movement that condemns others for such things doing such
> > things. We are a movement built on PEACE and non-initiation of force.
> > To have one of our leaders make a joke out of our cardinal principle
> > tickles the same sense of wrongness. Mother Theresa could get away
> > with a nun joke. She couldn't get away with a joke about starving
> > Indian children, even if she apologized. That is not thought police.
> > That is not unLibertarian. It is sheer meritocracy.
> > There are no words I can explain this better with Starchild. You are
> > brilliant and can out-write me on any day of the week and twice on
> > Sunday. But you are off base here, and I think lost in a Libertopia
> > where there are not bad actors and trolls and destructive edgelords
> > that act that way because they enjoy what they put others through. Our
> > failure to see and deal with is evidence that dangerous sociopaths (NO,
> > that is not what I am saying is going on here) would have a field day
> > in "our world" because we would buy their silver-tongued
> > "explanations." We have got the gentle as doves part down pat. We
> > need to brush up on the wise as serpents part.
> > I'm done. I have spilled my ration of digital ink.
> > What is even worse about what Arvin has done - and his posts over it
> > ooze with glee - he is fracturing us with all the zeal of the High
> > Septon -- the Party will not be pure until she is stripped and paraded
> > through the streets in atonement for our sins of a ticket that didn't
> > always stick to libertarian principles. That isn't what he was elected
> > to do. He did have recourse as Vice Chair - he could have moved to
> > disqualify them. He did not. He can resign and not have the weight of
> > this responsibility if he wishes. Life involves choices, and we chose
> > these roles and responsibilities.
> > This is a cumulative case of which the "lets murder the school board"
> > "joke" is just the latest. He was censured. That is a probationary
> > warning. He didn't take heed and picked the one thing that holds us
> > together - the membership pledge of non-aggression - as the butt of his
> > "joke" built on the youthful victims who woke up that day wondering
> > about how much homework they would have or if their crush was still mad
> > at them - not contemplating that those same bodies carefully dressed
> > and ready would within hours be cold and dead and the only clothing
> > that would matter would be the attire they would be buried in.
> > Let me play the Septa for a moment and say.... "shame."
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Starchild <[1]starchild at lp.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Caryn Ann,
> > My further responses interspersed below...
> > On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> > ==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
> > Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". I don't
> > use the
> > social media site that starts with an "F", but I'm on Twitter,
> > numerous
> > email lists (including the Radical Caucus list, which it would be
> > cool
> > if the caucus actually used!). I just joined MeWe. When you refer
> > to
> > "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking
> > about?
> > --- 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.
> > Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts
> > other than
> > what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not
> > parents.
> > ==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.
> > The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the
> > language
> > given then as justification for censure, and now uses that
> > language as
> > justification for suspension (which was previously rejected). The
> > only
> > thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
> > ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he
> > has
> > disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted
> > during
> > the intervening weeks).
> > ==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.
> > Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
> > apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he
> > stood by
> > the basic positions taken therein. That's different than what
> > he's
> > saying in this case � here's what he just posted on MeWe:
> > "Today, I�m being accused of advocating violence. Frankly,
> > that�s false. Like many of you, I have said that the Second
> > Amendment
> > is for defending yourself against government. I�ve also,
> > repeatedly
> > pointed out that a violent revolution is neither necessary nor
> > likely
> > to work. I�ve advocated against violence, even morally
> > justified
> > violence, repeatedly. I�ve even advocated against �legal�
> > violence done
> > by the state, and encouraged young men and women to find
> > nonviolent
> > work, rather than join the military.
> > I don�t advocate violence. I don�t support it. I don�t
> > support �legal�
> > violence done by the state. I don�t support morally justified
> > violence
> > against the state. I oppose violence in every form.
> > Did I make a joke about violence? Yes. Did I also apologize and
> > clarify
> > my position a few hours later? Yes. Did I emphasize my opposition
> > to
> > violence? Yes.
> > I�ve been very clear about my positions. I know many of you
> > don�t agree
> > with them, but I haven�t said �Haha, just kidding,� because
> > I was never
> > kidding. Military service is immoral, because U.S. foreign policy
> > is
> > immoral. Government school involvement is immoral, because theft
> > is immoral. Age of consent laws, which have the state usurp
> > natural
> > rights that stem from self ownership as well as family rights,
> > are
> > also immoral. I continue to stand by each of those positions.
> > But I�m not standing by a joke taken literally, because it is a
> > joke taken literally. A joke in poor taste, as I�ve clearly
> > stated, but
> > a joke nonetheless."
> > ===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]
> > I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test. It's
> > better
> > than nothing, but the language leaves much room for
> > interpretation.
> > Which is why I think it would be helpful to have something more
> > specific, like asking people's positions on a sampling of civil
> > liberties, economic freedom, and war/peace/nationalism questions.
> > Love & Liberty,
> > ((( starchild )))
> > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> > [1][2]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > (415) 625-FREE
> > @StarchildSF
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
> > <[2][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]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][9]www.VoteVohra.com
> > [5][6][9][10]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > (301) 320-3634
> > References
> > 1. [2][7][10][11]http://mewe.com/
> > 2. [3]mailto:[8][11][12]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 3. tel:317-850-0726
> > 4. [4][9][12][13]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 5. [5]mailto:[10][13][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > References
> > 1. mailto:[11][14][15]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 2. [12][15][16]http://mewe.com/
> > 3. mailto:[13][16][17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 4. [14][17][18]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 5. mailto:[15][18][19]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. [2]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][20]starchild at lp.org
> > 2. mailto:[20][21]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 3. [21][22]http://mewe.com/
> > 4. mailto:[22][23]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 5. [23][24]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 6. mailto:[24][25]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 7. [25][26]http://mewe.com/
> > 8. mailto:[26][27]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 9. [27][28]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 10. mailto:[28][29]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 11. mailto:[29][30]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 12. [30][31]http://mewe.com/
> > 13. mailto:[31][32]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 14. [32][33]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 15. mailto:[33][34]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 16. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 17. [35][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. [3]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. [4][36]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#
> > cite_note-2
> > 2. [5]mailto:[37]starchild at lp.org
> > 3. [6]mailto:[38]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 4. [7]mailto:[39]starchild at lp.org
> > 5. [8]mailto:[40]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 6. [9][41]http://mewe.com/
> > 7. [10]mailto:[42]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 8. [11][43]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 9. [12]mailto:[44]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 10. [13][45]http://mewe.com/
> > 11. [14]mailto:[46]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 12. [15][47]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 13. [16]mailto:[48]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 14. [17]mailto:[49]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 15. [18][50]http://mewe.com/
> > 16. [19]mailto:[51]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 17. [20][52]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 18. [21]mailto:[53]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 19. [22]mailto:[54]starchild at lp.org
> > 20. [23]mailto:[55]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 21. [24][56]http://mewe.com/
> > 22. [25]mailto:[57]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 23. [26][58]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 24. [27]mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 25. [28][60]http://mewe.com/
> > 26. [29]mailto:[61]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 27. [30][62]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 28. [31]mailto:[63]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 29. [32]mailto:[64]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 30. [33][65]http://mewe.com/
> > 31. [34]mailto:[66]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 32. [35][67]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 33. [36]mailto:[68]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 34. [37]mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 35. [38][70]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 36. [39]mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 37. [40][72]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > References
> > 1. mailto:[73]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 2. mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org
> > 3. mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org
> > 4. [76]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_
> > Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
> > 5. mailto:[77]starchild at lp.org
> > 6. mailto:[78]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 7. mailto:[79]starchild at lp.org
> > 8. mailto:[80]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 9. [81]http://mewe.com/
> > 10. mailto:[82]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 11. [83]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 12. mailto:[84]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 13. [85]http://mewe.com/
> > 14. mailto:[86]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 15. [87]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 16. mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 17. mailto:[89]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 18. [90]http://mewe.com/
> > 19. mailto:[91]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 20. [92]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 21. mailto:[93]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 22. mailto:[94]starchild at lp.org
> > 23. mailto:[95]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 24. [96]http://mewe.com/
> > 25. mailto:[97]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 26. [98]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 27. mailto:[99]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 28. [100]http://mewe.com/
> > 29. mailto:[101]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 30. [102]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 31. mailto:[103]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 32. mailto:[104]RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 33. [105]http://mewe.com/
> > 34. mailto:[106]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 35. [107]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 36. mailto:[108]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 37. mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 38. [110]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 39. mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 40. [112]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> >
> > --
> > --
> > In Liberty,
> > Caryn Ann Harlos
> > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
> > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
> > - [113]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> > Communications Director, [114]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. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 4. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 5. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 6. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 7. http://mewe.com/
> > 8. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 9. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 10. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 11. http://mewe.com/
> > 12. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 13. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 14. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 15. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 16. http://mewe.com/
> > 17. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 18. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 19. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 20. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 21. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 22. http://mewe.com/
> > 23. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 24. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 25. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 26. http://mewe.com/
> > 27. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 28. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 29. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 30. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 31. http://mewe.com/
> > 32. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 33. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 34. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 35. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 36. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
> > 37. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 38. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 39. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 40. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 41. http://mewe.com/
> > 42. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 43. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 44. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 45. http://mewe.com/
> > 46. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 47. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 48. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 49. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 50. http://mewe.com/
> > 51. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 52. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 53. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 54. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 55. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 56. http://mewe.com/
> > 57. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 58. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 59. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 60. http://mewe.com/
> > 61. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 62. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 63. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 64. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 65. http://mewe.com/
> > 66. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 67. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 68. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 69. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 70. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 71. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 72. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 73. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 74. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
> > 75. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
> > 76. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
> > 77. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 78. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 79. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 80. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 81. http://mewe.com/
> > 82. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 83. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 84. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 85. http://mewe.com/
> > 86. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 87. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 88. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 89. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 90. http://mewe.com/
> > 91. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 92. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 93. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 94. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> > 95. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 96. http://mewe.com/
> > 97. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 98. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 99. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 100. http://mewe.com/
> > 101. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 102. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 103. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 104. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> > 105. http://mewe.com/
> > 106. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> > 107. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> > 108. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> > 109. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 110. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 111. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 112. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> > 113. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> > 114. 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 --------------
Starchild it squares with my experience and that of hundreds of other
members, including many radicals.
As far as disavowing the underlying message I do not believe he has.
What he gives with one hand he takes away with the other- that is why
several people here voted YES after the disavowal.
Going back to my Contrapoints example with the white nationalists (heck
we can even go back to examples in our own midst vis a vis Invictus) -
people play games. The modern fascistic types hiding in the LP deny it
but the full breadth of their posting belies that assertion.
With AV’s self-admittedly violent rhetoric the disavowals ring off key
and certainly would ring off key to any attempt by the state to paint
us as fomenting violence- that IS the purpose of the Pledge.
We do not “hunt” the government.
We do not view fellow victims en masse as enemy collobators and parents
as leeches. While *he* today may not *personally* go on a school board
shooting spree in the very same statement he urged his readers to
consider it by pushing the idea of violent revolt. Yes that is against
the Pledge.
Might violent defense one day and in some circumstance be justified?
That is what the 2A is about. But the rhetoric and method and animus
of our VC’s posts tell a different story than his disavowal. That
rhetoric inspires McVeighs - who - lest we forget claimed he was a
libertarian defending against the state.
Revolution is NOT what we are about. Our mission is to avoid it not
act in such a way to foment it. It is a hoary possibility that should
be approached by officers of this party with heavy hearts of gravity-
not jokes about killing the mailman (enemy collobator amiright?)
I think many of us see the forest clearly (and from across wide
factional divides) and our VC is distracting people of good faith such
as yourself with a few trees.
It is a cumulative case of behavior that belies the disavowal and I
used the prior censure purposefully - it is not just this alleged
joke. That is part of a longgggg pattern.
My pointing out of the nature and purpose of humour and why we find
things funny is important. And some things apologies simply don’t
cover. There are consequences. It is not just the last incident.
I would vote for ten alternate removal motions that were not veiled
anti-radical purge statements if anyone if the no’s would be a yes with
different wording.
The censure did not work. He laughed it off. This is the next step to
end this circus.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:55 AM Starchild <[1]starchild at lp.org> wrote:
Caryn Ann,
No worries about not being able to take my call, I know you
do an incredible amount of work for the party and certainly don't
begrudge you your family time. And I appreciate your kind words
about my creativity and writing ability. I think the latter can be
rather hit-or-miss – I don't always feel particularly articulate,
and sometimes I can just be lazy or sloppy. Your essay below is very
well written by the way, even though the tone is informal.
I'm not aware of ContraPoints, although I do consume a wide
variety of media from different viewpoints both left and right as
well as libertarian, as I agree it's good to be familiar with the
arguments for their respective brands of statism. Will try to check
that out.
I can look at pages on the "F" site now, if someone sends me
a link, I just can't post there without an account. Aside from my
desire not to contribute to the problem of society entrusting
certain companies with too much power, the problem with creating a
dummy account on that site in order to see what Libertarians are
saying there is that people would naturally want to know who I am
before friending me, and that process of getting into everybody's
friend networks to see the conversations would naturally take some
time. Meanwhile, as it became commonly known among members of our
community that Account X was me under a different name, it seems
inevitable that someone not wanting my voice there for whatever
reason(s) would anonymously report me and get it shut down.
> ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==
> Then you conceded my point.
You seem to be under the impression that I was trying to say
it was designed as a litmus test. That's not what I was trying to
say. I was recognizing that it IS a kind of litmus test, but that we
could use a better one.
> He has walked back statements and apologized for bad
implications. That is the charitable reading. Or you are saying he
passive aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies.
I think there's a difference between walking back specific
phrasing that caused offense, and disavowing the underlying message
that readers would naturally get from a post, which I'm not aware of
him doing until now.
But to get to the heart of this. While there are various
individual points of your argument with which I am in agreement, the
overall caricature you paint of Arvin just doesn't square with the
observations of my own senses – the talk of "mind games",
"gaslighting", "bad actors", "trolls", "edgelords" (this sounds like
something out of a sci-fi novel!), posts that "ooze with glee",
"enjoy(ing) what (he) put(s) others through", etc. – none of this
accords with my personal sense of the individual I've come to know
during two terms on the LNC.
I'm not saying YOU are trying to "gaslight" us; I don't
doubt your sincerity. But take a step back and think about the kind
of person that Arvin would have to be, in order for all the stuff
you're saying about him to be true, and (for everyone) ask
yourselves whether that's really the same person we've known on this
committee.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
[2]RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
@StarchildSF
On Apr 4, 2018, at 12:12 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Starchild, we are not going to change each other's minds. I
could not
> take your calls as I was recording live for the LP. Also
honestly, I
> am not sacrificing any more family time for Arvin. Any time I
do will
> be getting on the phone with members who now think the LP is not
for
> them - that non-edgelords need not apply. Yes, I get those
calls.
> ==Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are".
...When you
> refer to
> "the world of social media", which other sites are you
talking
> about?==
> How members are taking it. On Facebeast.
> == Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or
posts other
> than
> what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not
parents.==
> Starchild at this point it is incumbent on you to get a dummy
account
> and research and see for yourself.
> ==The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the
language
> given then as justification for censure, and now uses that
language
> as
> justification for suspension (which was previously
rejected).===
> That is what citing is. And it was rejected as not enough THEN,
so
> censure, in which the next step is removal. That is the
progression of
> professional discipline.
> ==The only
> thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made
one
> ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and
he has
> disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted
during
> the intervening weeks).===
> First Starchild, I think you may be aware of the YouTuber
> ContraPoints. Excellent liberal commentator for people to get
out of
> the Milo echo chamber and hear good liberal defenses. I don't
agree
> with her, but I respect her immensely. She talks about the
difficulty
> of dealing with ethno nationalists - who say all the fashy
things but
> then deny it. There comes a point where it is a body of
evidence. The
> analogy here is to how gaslighting works NOT any idea that
anyone here
> is fashy (OBVIOUSLY NO ONE HERE IS) - just showing how these
things
> work and how Libertarians are often hoodwinked. I can send you
the
> link to her video - it is fantastic, and I think you would love
her as
> a person. She reminds me of you with her creative genius. Back
to
> Arvin, It was more than ill-advised, it was inexcusable for a
leader of
> the LP. Just like it would be inexcusable for a leader of the
ADL to
> make a "get into the ovens" "joke." Apologies and alleged
disavowing
> (many many people do not believe it because again, he goes on to
talk
> about WHEN it is acceptable in the same sentence - taking away
any
> genuineness or utility of any disavowal and is why I don't buy
his
> later disavowal either - I just don't. I'm a wise old bird when
it
> comes to these mind games) do not make everything okay. This is
> repeated behaviour and it is enough. I was once in an abusive
> marriage. Yes he apologized. Many times. But there came a
time when
> it was enough. And my ex genuinely wanted to do better (or
convinced
> me he did) - Arvin has promised us he will be worse. His words
ring
> hollow particularly when coupled with a call to defend taking up
arms
> and lethal force.
> ==Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
> apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he
stood
> by
> the basic positions taken therein.===
> He has walked back statements and apologized for bad
implications.
> That is the charitable reading. Or you are saying he passive
> aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies. He is
> standing by this basic position too - it is not very utilitarian
to
> shoot up school boards and to HIM it may not be proportional -
but you
> know, they are the enemy and their collaborators. You simply
have to
> read carefully. Its in the very post here - why do you think
two
> people changed to YES - AFTER reading his "defense." Because it
read
> like a fertilizer bomb. Our words have impact. I watched some
> specials on what drove McVeigh to his horrific act - mixing bad
> government with reckless rhetoric and a healthy dose of
nuttiness and a
> big kaboom comes out. Free speech is not consequenceless
speech. That
> girl who goaded her male friend over text to just kill himself
and he
> did - she didn't kill him. He still had agency. It is a danger
of
> free speech, but it doesn't make her speech noble or good. Our
words -
> as leaders - have influence. We took these positions knowing
that.
> Libertarians believe in responsibility. Part of that
responsibility is
> that you don't as a leader in the third largest political party
in the
> US in a politically violent time, OVER THE BODIES OF DEAD TEENS,
"joke"
> about murdering school board officials - when we run school
board
> officials!!! By Arvin's logic, we are enemy collaborators.
Many
> anarchists of his POV think so. This anarchist does not.
> ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==
> Then you conceded my point. It was put in place as a barrier, a
> protection, to OUR MEMBERS. Which our Vice Chair blithely
"joked
> away." Not acceptable. Not okay. And another note ends up in
many
> members files due to Arvin. Its all fun and games until shit
gets
> real. He either was so obtuse and tone deaf to make such an
> inappropriate "joke" (coupled with his past inappropriate
comments
> about preferring that little girls get impregnated by much older
men
> with jobs rather than an equally confused kid) OR he meant it.
OR
> potentially a combination of both. "Jokes" are often "funny" to
the
> people who make them because there is some small grain of truth
in them
> to the maker and to the audience. We laugh at inappropriate
> stereotypes because there ARE some people like that (the problem
is
> making a whole GROUP like that and making neutral
characteristics to be
> malignant or bad when it is just people being people). To wit,
there
> are a lot of radical leftist feminists with pink hair. I am not
one of
> them. But people laugh when that joke is made towards me. It is
funny
> because here is some truth. And then I get an opportunity to
show how
> stupid collectivization is. What kernel of truth did Arvin find
SO
> FUNNY? That he juxtaposed it with the murder of children!?:!
As a
> political leader????? There are people who make "rape jokes."
I
> question what in the person exists for them to even consider
that a
> "joke" unless it was to show some underlying truth through dark
evil.
> What underlying truth is there in this? Not to mention that
THIS IS A
> PATTERN. Arvin has had for months - quite seriously - made
posts that
> follow the pattern of Bad Idea: XXXX, Good Idea: XXXXX or more
> frequently Bad Idea XXXX, Worse Idea XXXXX. So he then goes and
says
> Bad Idea school shootings. Good Idea School Board Shootings,
and no
> everyone is supposed to magically know that THIS one was not
serious.
> That he broke character. (it also troubles me that he admits he
> wouldn't say that on FB but WeMe (or whatever silly name it is)
is
> edgier so its all okay..... so perhaps helicopter ride jokes
are also
> okay, you just gotta be down with the Hoppe dudes to make them).
> Why do we find it so ironic when the fundamentalist theocrat who
rails
> against gay people is found in bed with another of the same
sex. Not
> because we think he should not have the right or any moral
judgment
> about the intimate act. We rightly note the hypocrisy of a
person who
> is part of a movement that condemns others for such things doing
such
> things. We are a movement built on PEACE and non-initiation of
force.
> To have one of our leaders make a joke out of our cardinal
principle
> tickles the same sense of wrongness. Mother Theresa could get
away
> with a nun joke. She couldn't get away with a joke about
starving
> Indian children, even if she apologized. That is not thought
police.
> That is not unLibertarian. It is sheer meritocracy.
> There are no words I can explain this better with Starchild.
You are
> brilliant and can out-write me on any day of the week and twice
on
> Sunday. But you are off base here, and I think lost in a
Libertopia
> where there are not bad actors and trolls and destructive
edgelords
> that act that way because they enjoy what they put others
through. Our
> failure to see and deal with is evidence that dangerous
sociopaths (NO,
> that is not what I am saying is going on here) would have a
field day
> in "our world" because we would buy their silver-tongued
> "explanations." We have got the gentle as doves part down pat.
We
> need to brush up on the wise as serpents part.
> I'm done. I have spilled my ration of digital ink.
> What is even worse about what Arvin has done - and his posts
over it
> ooze with glee - he is fracturing us with all the zeal of the
High
> Septon -- the Party will not be pure until she is stripped and
paraded
> through the streets in atonement for our sins of a ticket that
didn't
> always stick to libertarian principles. That isn't what he was
elected
> to do. He did have recourse as Vice Chair - he could have moved
to
> disqualify them. He did not. He can resign and not have the
weight of
> this responsibility if he wishes. Life involves choices, and we
chose
> these roles and responsibilities.
> This is a cumulative case of which the "lets murder the school
board"
> "joke" is just the latest. He was censured. That is a
probationary
> warning. He didn't take heed and picked the one thing that holds
us
> together - the membership pledge of non-aggression - as the butt
of his
> "joke" built on the youthful victims who woke up that day
wondering
> about how much homework they would have or if their crush was
still mad
> at them - not contemplating that those same bodies carefully
dressed
> and ready would within hours be cold and dead and the only
clothing
> that would matter would be the attire they would be buried in.
> Let me play the Septa for a moment and say.... "shame."
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Starchild
<[1][3]starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Caryn Ann,
> My further responses interspersed below...
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> ==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
> Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". I
don't
> use the
> social media site that starts with an "F", but I'm on
Twitter,
> numerous
> email lists (including the Radical Caucus list, which it
would be
> cool
> if the caucus actually used!). I just joined MeWe. When you
refer
> to
> "the world of social media", which other sites are you
talking
> about?
> --- 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.
> Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or
posts
> other than
> what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not
> parents.
> ==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.
> The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats
the
> language
> given then as justification for censure, and now uses that
> language as
> justification for suspension (which was previously
rejected). The
> only
> thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made
one
> ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and
he
> has
> disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's
posted
> during
> the intervening weeks).
> ==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.
> Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think
he's
> apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that
he
> stood by
> the basic positions taken therein. That's different than
what
> he's
> saying in this case � here's what he just posted on MeWe:
> "Today, I�m being accused of advocating violence.
Frankly,
> that�s false. Like many of you, I have said that the
Second
> Amendment
> is for defending yourself against government. I�ve also,
> repeatedly
> pointed out that a violent revolution is neither necessary
nor
> likely
> to work. I�ve advocated against violence, even morally
> justified
> violence, repeatedly. I�ve even advocated against
�legal�
> violence done
> by the state, and encouraged young men and women to find
> nonviolent
> work, rather than join the military.
> I don�t advocate violence. I don�t support it. I
don�t
> support �legal�
> violence done by the state. I don�t support morally
justified
> violence
> against the state. I oppose violence in every form.
> Did I make a joke about violence? Yes. Did I also apologize
and
> clarify
> my position a few hours later? Yes. Did I emphasize my
opposition
> to
> violence? Yes.
> I�ve been very clear about my positions. I know many of
you
> don�t agree
> with them, but I haven�t said �Haha, just kidding,�
because
> I was never
> kidding. Military service is immoral, because U.S. foreign
policy
> is
> immoral. Government school involvement is immoral, because
theft
> is immoral. Age of consent laws, which have the state usurp
> natural
> rights that stem from self ownership as well as family
rights,
> are
> also immoral. I continue to stand by each of those
positions.
> But I�m not standing by a joke taken literally, because
it is a
> joke taken literally. A joke in poor taste, as I�ve
clearly
> stated, but
> a joke nonetheless."
> ===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]
> I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.
It's
> better
> than nothing, but the language leaves much room for
> interpretation.
> Which is why I think it would be helpful to have something
more
> specific, like asking people's positions on a sampling of
civil
> liberties, economic freedom, and war/peace/nationalism
questions.
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
[1][2][4]RealReform at earthlink.net
> (415) 625-FREE
> @StarchildSF
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
> <[2][3][5]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][4][6]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][5][7]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][6]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][7][8]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][8][9]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][9][10]www.VoteVohra.com
> [5][6][9][10][11]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
> References
> 1. [2][7][10][11][12]http://mewe.com/
> 2. [3]mailto:[8][11][12][13]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 3. tel:317-850-0726
> 4. [4][9][12][13][14]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 5. [5]mailto:[10][13][14][15]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> References
> 1. mailto:[11][14][15][16]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 2. [12][15][16][17]http://mewe.com/
> 3. mailto:[13][16][17][18]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 4. [14][17][18][19]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 5. mailto:[15][18][19][20]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. [2]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][20][21]starchild at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[20][21][22]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 3. [21][22][23]http://mewe.com/
> 4. mailto:[22][23][24]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 5. [23][24][25]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 6. mailto:[24][25][26]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 7. [25][26][27]http://mewe.com/
> 8. mailto:[26][27][28]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 9. [27][28][29]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 10. mailto:[28][29][30]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 11. mailto:[29][30][31]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 12. [30][31][32]http://mewe.com/
> 13. mailto:[31][32][33]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 14. [32][33][34]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 15. mailto:[33][34][35]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 16. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 17. [35][35][36]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. [3]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.
[4][36][37]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#
> cite_note-2
> 2. [5]mailto:[37][38]starchild at lp.org
> 3. [6]mailto:[38][39]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 4. [7]mailto:[39][40]starchild at lp.org
> 5. [8]mailto:[40][41]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 6. [9][41][42]http://mewe.com/
> 7. [10]mailto:[42][43]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 8. [11][43][44]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 9. [12]mailto:[44][45]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 10. [13][45][46]http://mewe.com/
> 11. [14]mailto:[46][47]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 12. [15][47][48]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 13. [16]mailto:[48][49]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 14. [17]mailto:[49][50]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 15. [18][50][51]http://mewe.com/
> 16. [19]mailto:[51][52]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 17. [20][52][53]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 18. [21]mailto:[53][54]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 19. [22]mailto:[54][55]starchild at lp.org
> 20. [23]mailto:[55][56]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 21. [24][56][57]http://mewe.com/
> 22. [25]mailto:[57][58]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 23. [26][58][59]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 24. [27]mailto:[59][60]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 25. [28][60][61]http://mewe.com/
> 26. [29]mailto:[61][62]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 27. [30][62][63]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 28. [31]mailto:[63][64]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 29. [32]mailto:[64][65]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 30. [33][65][66]http://mewe.com/
> 31. [34]mailto:[66][67]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 32. [35][67][68]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 33. [36]mailto:[68][69]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 34. [37]mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 35. [38][70][70]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 36. [39]mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 37. [40][72][71]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> References
> 1. mailto:[73][72]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 2. mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org
> 3. mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org
> 4. [76][73]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_
> Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
> 5. mailto:[77][74]starchild at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[78][75]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 7. mailto:[79][76]starchild at lp.org
> 8. mailto:[80][77]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 9. [81][78]http://mewe.com/
> 10. mailto:[82][79]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 11. [83][80]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 12. mailto:[84][81]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 13. [85][82]http://mewe.com/
> 14. mailto:[86][83]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 15. [87][84]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 16. mailto:[88][85]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 17. mailto:[89][86]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 18. [90][87]http://mewe.com/
> 19. mailto:[91][88]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 20. [92][89]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 21. mailto:[93][90]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 22. mailto:[94][91]starchild at lp.org
> 23. mailto:[95][92]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 24. [96][93]http://mewe.com/
> 25. mailto:[97][94]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 26. [98][95]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 27. mailto:[99][96]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 28. [100][97]http://mewe.com/
> 29. mailto:[101][98]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 30. [102][99]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 31. mailto:[103][100]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 32. mailto:[104][101]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 33. [105][102]http://mewe.com/
> 34. mailto:[106][103]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 35. [107][104]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 36. mailto:[108][105]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 37. mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 38. [110][106]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 39. mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 40. [112][107]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>
> --
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
Washington)
> - [113]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, [114]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:[108]starchild at lp.org
> 2. mailto:[109]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 3. mailto:[110]starchild at lp.org
> 4. mailto:[111]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 5. mailto:[112]starchild at lp.org
> 6. mailto:[113]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 7. [114]http://mewe.com/
> 8. mailto:[115]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 9. [116]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 10. mailto:[117]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 11. [118]http://mewe.com/
> 12. mailto:[119]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 13. [120]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 14. mailto:[121]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 15. mailto:[122]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 16. [123]http://mewe.com/
> 17. mailto:[124]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 18. [125]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 19. mailto:[126]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 20. mailto:[127]starchild at lp.org
> 21. mailto:[128]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 22. [129]http://mewe.com/
> 23. mailto:[130]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 24. [131]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 25. mailto:[132]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 26. [133]http://mewe.com/
> 27. mailto:[134]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 28. [135]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 29. mailto:[136]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 30. mailto:[137]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 31. [138]http://mewe.com/
> 32. mailto:[139]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 33. [140]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 34. mailto:[141]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 35. [142]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 36.
[143]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
> 37. mailto:[144]starchild at lp.org
> 38. mailto:[145]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 39. mailto:[146]starchild at lp.org
> 40. mailto:[147]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 41. [148]http://mewe.com/
> 42. mailto:[149]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 43. [150]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 44. mailto:[151]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 45. [152]http://mewe.com/
> 46. mailto:[153]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 47. [154]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 48. mailto:[155]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 49. mailto:[156]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 50. [157]http://mewe.com/
> 51. mailto:[158]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 52. [159]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 53. mailto:[160]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 54. mailto:[161]starchild at lp.org
> 55. mailto:[162]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 56. [163]http://mewe.com/
> 57. mailto:[164]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 58. [165]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 59. mailto:[166]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 60. [167]http://mewe.com/
> 61. mailto:[168]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 62. [169]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 63. mailto:[170]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 64. mailto:[171]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 65. [172]http://mewe.com/
> 66. mailto:[173]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 67. [174]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 68. mailto:[175]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 69. mailto:[176]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 70. [177]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 71. mailto:[178]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 72. [179]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 73. mailto:[180]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 74. mailto:[181]Harlos at LP.org
> 75. mailto:[182]Harlos at LP.org
> 76.
[183]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
> 77. mailto:[184]starchild at lp.org
> 78. mailto:[185]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 79. mailto:[186]starchild at lp.org
> 80. mailto:[187]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 81. [188]http://mewe.com/
> 82. mailto:[189]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 83. [190]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 84. mailto:[191]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 85. [192]http://mewe.com/
> 86. mailto:[193]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 87. [194]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 88. mailto:[195]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 89. mailto:[196]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 90. [197]http://mewe.com/
> 91. mailto:[198]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 92. [199]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 93. mailto:[200]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 94. mailto:[201]starchild at lp.org
> 95. mailto:[202]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 96. [203]http://mewe.com/
> 97. mailto:[204]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 98. [205]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 99. mailto:[206]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 100. [207]http://mewe.com/
> 101. mailto:[208]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 102. [209]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 103. mailto:[210]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 104. mailto:[211]RealReform at earthlink.net
> 105. [212]http://mewe.com/
> 106. mailto:[213]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
> 107. [214]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 108. mailto:[215]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> 109. mailto:[216]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 110. [217]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 111. mailto:[218]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 112. [219]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 113. mailto:[220]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 114. [221]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
--
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
- [222]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
Communications Director, [223]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. mailto:starchild at lp.org
4. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
5. mailto:starchild at lp.org
6. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
7. mailto:starchild at lp.org
8. http://mewe.com/
9. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
10. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
11. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
12. http://mewe.com/
13. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
14. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
15. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
16. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
17. http://mewe.com/
18. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
19. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
20. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
21. mailto:starchild at lp.org
22. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
23. http://mewe.com/
24. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
25. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
26. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
27. http://mewe.com/
28. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
29. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
30. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
31. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
32. http://mewe.com/
33. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
34. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
35. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
36. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
37. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge
38. mailto:starchild at lp.org
39. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
40. mailto:starchild at lp.org
41. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
42. http://mewe.com/
43. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
44. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
45. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
46. http://mewe.com/
47. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
48. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
49. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
50. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
51. http://mewe.com/
52. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
53. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
54. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
55. mailto:starchild at lp.org
56. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
57. http://mewe.com/
58. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
59. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
60. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
61. http://mewe.com/
62. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
63. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
64. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
65. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
66. http://mewe.com/
67. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
68. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
69. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
70. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
71. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
72. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
73. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_
74. mailto:starchild at lp.org
75. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
76. mailto:starchild at lp.org
77. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
78. http://mewe.com/
79. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
80. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
81. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
82. http://mewe.com/
83. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
84. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
85. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
86. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
87. http://mewe.com/
88. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
89. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
90. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
91. mailto:starchild at lp.org
92. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
93. http://mewe.com/
94. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
95. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
96. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
97. http://mewe.com/
98. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
99. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
100. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
101. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
102. http://mewe.com/
103. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
104. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
105. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
106. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
107. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
108. mailto:starchild at lp.org
109. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
110. mailto:starchild at lp.org
111. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
112. mailto:starchild at lp.org
113. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
114. http://mewe.com/
115. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
116. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
117. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
118. http://mewe.com/
119. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
120. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
121. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
122. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
123. http://mewe.com/
124. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
125. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
126. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
127. mailto:starchild at lp.org
128. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
129. http://mewe.com/
130. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
131. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
132. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
133. http://mewe.com/
134. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
135. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
136. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
137. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
138. http://mewe.com/
139. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
140. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
141. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
142. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
143. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
144. mailto:starchild at lp.org
145. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
146. mailto:starchild at lp.org
147. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
148. http://mewe.com/
149. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
150. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
151. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
152. http://mewe.com/
153. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
154. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
155. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
156. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
157. http://mewe.com/
158. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
159. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
160. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
161. mailto:starchild at lp.org
162. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
163. http://mewe.com/
164. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
165. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
166. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
167. http://mewe.com/
168. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
169. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
170. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
171. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
172. http://mewe.com/
173. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
174. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
175. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
176. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
177. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
178. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
179. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
180. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
181. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
182. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
183. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
184. mailto:starchild at lp.org
185. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
186. mailto:starchild at lp.org
187. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
188. http://mewe.com/
189. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
190. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
191. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
192. http://mewe.com/
193. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
194. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
195. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
196. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
197. http://mewe.com/
198. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
199. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
200. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
201. mailto:starchild at lp.org
202. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
203. http://mewe.com/
204. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
205. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
206. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
207. http://mewe.com/
208. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
209. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
210. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
211. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
212. http://mewe.com/
213. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
214. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
215. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
216. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
217. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
218. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
219. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
220. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
221. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
222. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
223. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list