[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Thu Apr 5 11:51:42 EDT 2018


I am serious.  Thanks for talking down to me though.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:43 AM <david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:

> Get serious. I could draw you a picture to connect the obvious dots, but I
> am not into soundbite memes.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of Caryn
> Ann Harlos
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:40 AM
> To: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
>
> How about political party leaders who argued on social media to vote for
> candidates who advocated using force and theft to make sure there was a
> cake at every wedding?
>
> Asking for a friend.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
> > **raises hand**
> >
> > I don't know what debate you are in but it doesn't appear to be this one.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:11 AM, <david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> >>    The Libertarian Party was born from the radical ideas introduced by
> Ayn
> >>    Rand. She was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians,
> perhaps
> >>    because she thought they were stealing her ideas and misinterpreting
> >>    them. And interpret them, they did. Rand absolutely nailed the moral
> >>    justification for reason, rational self-interest, and laissez faire
> >>    capitalism. Rand was a Minarchist and perhaps a mild chauvinist. She
> >>    suggested that top-down leaders should be men, not women. The
> radicals
> >>    that created the LP built the party and Statement of Principles by
> >>    taking Rand's admirable intellectual process a step further. They had
> >>    the temerity and courage to examine the moral justification for
> >>    government, or lack thereof. Make no mistake, the LP was born of
> >>    radical, controversial ideas expressed with passion that grew the
> >>    movement exponentially based largely on Rand's ideas that filled the
> >>    intellectual vacuum that existed prior to the release of ‘Atlas
> >>    Shrugged’.
> >>
> >>
> >>    As many intellectual movements do, at least at the top-down political
> >>    level, the Libertarian Party gradually moved away from its radical
> >>    roots, ostensibly to avoid scaring off voters. Then along came Dr.
> Ron
> >>    Paul. His radical interpretation of what was wrong with government
> and
> >>    specific remedies reinvigorated the LP and generated a huge
> following,
> >>    especially among the young. Many Libertarians, both radicals and
> >>    moderates, that were inspired by both Ayn Rand and Dr. Ron Paul,
> >>    disagree with specific points in Rand’s and Dr. Paul’s Libertarian
> >>    world views, particularly on the issue of Minarchism versus
> >>    Voluntaryism.
> >>
> >>
> >>    Our specific ideological disagreements, however, cannot obscure the
> >>    fact that radical, controversial ideas, expressed passionately by
> >>    inspirational leaders, such and Rand and Dr. Paul, were and will
> >>    continue to be the driving force that sustains the broader
> Libertarian
> >>    movement. The question is whether the political arm of the movement,
> >>    the Libertarian Party, will follow suit, inspire others with our
> >>    intellectual courage, and lead by example with new and controversial
> >>    ideas. Or will we apologize to voters for our principles and
> gradually
> >>    drift toward the fate of the old parties that blatantly appease
> voters
> >>    to win hollow political victories really aimed at gaining authority
> >>    over others.
> >>    Who among us will have the intellectual foresight, creativity,
> courage,
> >>    and passion necessary to introduce new and controversial ideas that
> >>    will inspire non-Libertarians to vote for Libertarian candidates, win
> >>    meaningful elections at all levels to obtain regulatory relief, and
> >>    upsize the voluntary market sector while downsizing the coercive
> >>    statist sector? Who among us will be the next Ayn Rand or Dr. Ron
> Paul
> >>    to reinvigorate and re-radicalize the Libertarian Party in our quest
> >>    for freedom, nothing more, nothing less, for all people?
> >>
> >>
> >>    -----Original Message-----
> >>    From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of
> >>    Starchild
> >>    Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:55 AM
> >>    To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >>    Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin
> >>    Vohra
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    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
> >>
> >>                            [1]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][2]
> 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][3]
> RealReform at earthlink.net
> >>
> >>    >                                           (415) 625-FREE
> >>
> >>    >                                              @StarchildSF
> >>
> >>    >          On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
> >>
> >>    >     <[2][3][4]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][5]
> 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][6]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
> >

-- 
-- 
*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 --------------
   I am serious.  Thanks for talking down to me though.
   On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:43 AM <[1]david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:

     Get serious. I could draw you a picture to connect the obvious dots,
     but I am not into soundbite memes.
     -----Original Message-----
     From: Lnc-business <[2]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of
     Caryn Ann Harlos
     Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:40 AM
     To: Libertarian National Committee list <[3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
     Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of
     Arvin Vohra
     How about political party leaders who argued on social media to vote
     for
     candidates who advocated using force and theft to make sure there
     was a
     cake at every wedding?
     Asking for a friend.
     On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
     <[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
     wrote:
     > **raises hand**
     >
     > I don't know what debate you are in but it doesn't appear to be
     this one.
     >
     > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:11 AM, <[5]david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:
     >
     >>    The Libertarian Party was born from the radical ideas
     introduced by Ayn
     >>    Rand. She was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians,
     perhaps
     >>    because she thought they were stealing her ideas and
     misinterpreting
     >>    them. And interpret them, they did. Rand absolutely nailed the
     moral
     >>    justification for reason, rational self-interest, and laissez
     faire
     >>    capitalism. Rand was a Minarchist and perhaps a mild
     chauvinist. She
     >>    suggested that top-down leaders should be men, not women. The
     radicals
     >>    that created the LP built the party and Statement of
     Principles by
     >>    taking Rand's admirable intellectual process a step further.
     They had
     >>    the temerity and courage to examine the moral justification
     for
     >>    government, or lack thereof. Make no mistake, the LP was born
     of
     >>    radical, controversial ideas expressed with passion that grew
     the
     >>    movement exponentially based largely on Rand's ideas that
     filled the
     >>    intellectual vacuum that existed prior to the release of
     ‘Atlas
     >>    Shrugged’.
     >>
     >>
     >>    As many intellectual movements do, at least at the top-down
     political
     >>    level, the Libertarian Party gradually moved away from its
     radical
     >>    roots, ostensibly to avoid scaring off voters. Then along came
     Dr. Ron
     >>    Paul. His radical interpretation of what was wrong with
     government and
     >>    specific remedies reinvigorated the LP and generated a huge
     following,
     >>    especially among the young. Many Libertarians, both radicals
     and
     >>    moderates, that were inspired by both Ayn Rand and Dr. Ron
     Paul,
     >>    disagree with specific points in Rand’s and Dr. Paul’s
     Libertarian
     >>    world views, particularly on the issue of Minarchism versus
     >>    Voluntaryism.
     >>
     >>
     >>    Our specific ideological disagreements, however, cannot
     obscure the
     >>    fact that radical, controversial ideas, expressed passionately
     by
     >>    inspirational leaders, such and Rand and Dr. Paul, were and
     will
     >>    continue to be the driving force that sustains the broader
     Libertarian
     >>    movement. The question is whether the political arm of the
     movement,
     >>    the Libertarian Party, will follow suit, inspire others with
     our
     >>    intellectual courage, and lead by example with new and
     controversial
     >>    ideas. Or will we apologize to voters for our principles and
     gradually
     >>    drift toward the fate of the old parties that blatantly
     appease voters
     >>    to win hollow political victories really aimed at gaining
     authority
     >>    over others.
     >>    Who among us will have the intellectual foresight, creativity,
     courage,
     >>    and passion necessary to introduce new and controversial ideas
     that
     >>    will inspire non-Libertarians to vote for Libertarian
     candidates, win
     >>    meaningful elections at all levels to obtain regulatory
     relief, and
     >>    upsize the voluntary market sector while downsizing the
     coercive
     >>    statist sector? Who among us will be the next Ayn Rand or Dr.
     Ron Paul
     >>    to reinvigorate and re-radicalize the Libertarian Party in our
     quest
     >>    for freedom, nothing more, nothing less, for all people?
     >>
     >>
     >>    -----Original Message-----
     >>    From: Lnc-business <[6]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On
     Behalf Of
     >>    Starchild
     >>    Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:55 AM
     >>    To: [7]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
     >>    Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension
     of Arvin
     >>    Vohra
     >>
     >>
     >>
     >>    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
     >>
     >>                            [1][8]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][2][9]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][3][10]RealReform at earthlink.net
     >>
     >>    >                                           (415) 625-FREE
     >>
     >>    >                                              @StarchildSF
     >>
     >>    >          On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
     >>
     >>    >     <[2][3][4][11]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][5][12]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][6][13]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][14]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
     >

   --

   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
   - [15]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   Communications Director, [16]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:david.demarest at lp.org
   2. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
   3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   5. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
   6. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
   7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   8. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   9. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  10. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  11. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  12. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  13. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  14. http://mewe.com/
  15. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  16. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list