[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
Arvin Vohra
votevohra at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 10:05:47 EDT 2018
I don't know if I get a vote on this, but if I do, I vote "no."
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
> We all everybody..
>
> D
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Can you those of you engaged in endless debate please take it off the
> voting thread so better track can be kept of votes on this matter?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Sam Goldstein
> > Libertarian National Committee
> > 317-850-0726 Cell
> >
> >> On 2018-04-05 11:51, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> >> 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/
>
>
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
I don't know if I get a vote on this, but if I do, I vote "no."
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Daniel Hayes <[1]daniel.hayes at lp.org>
wrote:
We all everybody..
D
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 5, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Sam Goldstein <[2]sam.goldstein at lp.org>
wrote:
>
> Can you those of you engaged in endless debate please take it off the
voting thread so better track can be kept of votes on this matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> ---
> Sam Goldstein
> Libertarian National Committee
> 317-850-0726 Cell
>
>> On 2018-04-05 11:51, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> I am serious. Thanks for talking down to me though.
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:43 AM <[1][3]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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]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][8]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>
On
>> Behalf Of
>> >> Starchild
>> >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:55 AM
>> >> To: [7][9]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][10]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][11]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][12]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> >>
>> >> > (415) 625-FREE
>> >>
>> >> >
@StarchildSF
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
>> >>
>> >> > <[2][3][4][11][13]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][14]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][15]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][16]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:[17]david.demarest at lp.org
>> 2. mailto:[18]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>> 3. mailto:[19]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 4. mailto:[20]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:[21]david.demarest at lp.org
>> 6. mailto:[22]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>> 7. mailto:[23]lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> 8. mailto:[24]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 9. mailto:[25]starchild at lp.org
>> 10. mailto:[26]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 11. mailto:[27]starchild at lp.org
>> 12. mailto:[28]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 13. mailto:[29]starchild at lp.org
>> 14. [30]http://mewe.com/
>> 15. mailto:[31]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 16. [32]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
--
Arvin Vohra
[33]www.VoteVohra.com
[34]VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
References
1. mailto:daniel.hayes at lp.org
2. mailto:sam.goldstein at lp.org
3. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
4. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
5. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
7. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
8. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
9. mailto:lnc-business at hq.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. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
15. mailto:starchild at lp.org
16. http://mewe.com/
17. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
18. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
19. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
20. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
21. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
22. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
23. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
24. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
25. mailto:starchild at lp.org
26. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
27. mailto:starchild at lp.org
28. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
29. mailto:starchild at lp.org
30. http://mewe.com/
31. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
32. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
33. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
34. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list