[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