[Lnc-business] Hello Party members, one POV on the Arvin Vohra controversy

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I know.  Just what we needed.  Another discussion thread.  I am doing it
for several reasons.  One, though not the circumstances I prefer, members
are reading this list, and I think if we agree to post thoughts on one
thread it will help them.  Second, I want to explain my position to those
members and to my peers, and hopefully to Arvin—as we are more than LNC
peers, we both consider ourselves radicals and anarchists.



There are many strands of complaints and defenses we have received or
heard, and some have vastly different reasoning.  I am going to generalize
them and give my general position in regard to them.



A:  The LP is just about winning elections.  We should only be talking
about things that appeal to the general voter and not stir up any
controversy.



I disagree and submit that is fundamentally wrong.  Our Bylaws define our
purpose and that is not it.  Freedom itself is offensive in a world of
tyranny.



B: The LP isn’t going to win elections, our only goal should be education
and finding the closet Libertarians.



I disagree for the same reasons I disagreed above.  If potentially winning
elections is not ever a goal, I think we need to tell voters that—that we
are merely using the electoral stage to teach them, and make sure
candidates know this.



We are – per our Bylaws – BOTH.



C: Arvin is saying radical things.  I am a radical, and I will support him.



I am a radical.  I don’t support my “team” no matter what.



D.  Arvin is an anarchist.  They don’t belong in the Party.



Ditto to above.  Wrong.



E.  Arvin is opposing our Platform.



No he isn’t.  The Platform isn’t all encompassing, and it doesn’t
*necessarily* have a position where it is silent.  To say X can do
something doesn’t mean Y can’t.  Using the world “adult” in a historical
Libertarian context is not a legal definition, it is a moral one – our past
Platforms made that clear.  If the law tomorrow changed the law so that
people were not adults until 21 does that mean we should just support that?
Of course not, so obviously this is a category of rights and
responsibilities, not an arbitrary law.  If you don’t think the law IS
arbitrary but rather makes the right call, then you believe it for reasons
other than it is merely the law.  It is about consent which requires
ability to consent.  There are adults who cannot consent - such as my
mentally disabled relative. And consent will necessarily take things like
actual chronological maturity into the equation.  There is an internal
dispute about whether this is best done by a bright line generalization or
whether that violates rights.



F. Opposing age of consent laws is not Libertarian.



Wrong.  Libertarians have consistently done that in all areas.  Including
drinking  by the way.  Reason Magazine – not by any means a flaming radical
publication writes on it regularly.  Opposing a law doesn’t mean there are
not standards.  It means that there is a better and more rights-honouring
way to go about it.  Just like opposing welfare doesn’t mean that poor
people should starve.  It means there is a better way to help them without
violating people's rights.



G.  This is censorship.   This is just a moral panic that some people
didn’t like freedom of speech on social media.  Libertarians shouldn’t
judge people’s positions like that.



Well this falls apart easily.  We invited white nationalists out of the
Party.  People called for the removal of the platform committee appointment
of Frank Caprio for posting a white nationalist manifesto statement.



If Arvin had posted a white nationalist manifesto statement would the story
be the same?  I suspect not.  Thus, like the old joke when someone offers
to pay a million dollars for sex and is accepted but is rebuffed at ten
dollars – the possibility has already been conceded.  We are now only
negotiating terms.  (and there’s nothing wrong with that in my view)



H.  This is punishing someone for saying things that are too Libertarian.



The points above apply. White nationalists argue that they don’t want to
use force and thus their views are very Libertarian. They can claim they
are not bigots, they are “realists” or whatever malarkey.



Let me give though an example from this incident:



Arvin posted – with a cutesy FB background – to the effect that he would
prefer a 14 year girl get impregnated by a grown man with a job than a kid
with no job because #endwelfare.



That is not “too Libertarian” – it is much jackass.



If anyone were to post  that all poor women should just abort all their
pregnancies because then we wouldn’t have to pay for those kids #endwelfare
– is that okay?  Don’t give me the nonsense that there is some cold logical
truth to it. We are not robots.  We are human beings.



That is NOT the kind of callous reckless statement a LEADER should say.  Is
that censorship?  No, it is expectations that you have a right to have of
your leaders.  And unless you tell everyone exactly all of your darkest
thoughts at every time, including to your mother in law – don’t lecture me
about censorship.  You censor yourself every day if you are a normally
functioning human being.



I.  He is saying things are that too edgy.



If that is your discomfort, then you might have misjudged what the LP
stands for.  We believe in the abolition of public schools.  We believe in
the legalization of all drugs.  To name just a few “edgy” things.  Whether
or not something is “edgy” is not particularly relevant.



The LP is not a “safe” Party.



I probably missed a few.



So, what then is my PERSONAL reason for saying there are grounds.  THIS IS
NOT THE VIEW OF MY REGION.  I will vote the will of my Region not my
personal view.



Leaders have a responsibility beyond themselves.  It requires judgment.
And discretion.  Lack of both means unfitness.  And if unfitness is
demonstrated then I think there is cause.  Is this a potentially dangerous
path?  Yes.  So is letting someone run roughshod over the Party.



And in this case, we are not talking about the Treasurer (sorry Tim) – the
Treasurer is not considered an alternate spokesperson for the Party—though
I think if a Treasurer started posting about how it is okay to steal from
organizations that members would have cause.  The Vice Chair is.  If Nick
were to disappear tomorrow, Arvin fills in.  That is a responsibility and
an awareness.



Libertarians have questioned age of consent laws since forever.  If that is
what a member is upset with, then they depart from a genuine Party debate
and that is fine, but you can’t expect action on that grounds.   You can
expect wisdom and judgment in how it is done.  You can expect that a leader
will understand that it is very easy to look like an apologist for Chester
the Molestor.  You can expect a leader to know that context matters, and
that social media is a piss poor medium in subjects that have damaged so
many people.


I'm of the view that culture matters a LOT, and prosperous people are
blessed to be able to raise their children to NOT have to assume adult
responsibilities early.  They are allowed to have a childhood and are not
forced into work and life decisions by brutal necessity of life and death.
And since we can give the best to our children, we raise them in such a way
that they are not equipped to handle adult issues prematurely.  It is the
same reason that I am appalled when a young person is sentenced as an
adult.  In a society of warfare and life and death a young person is forced
to learn life and death ramifications that are not the same in a society
that is not at civil war.    My position is that there should be a clear
path to emancipation and until then, biological reality is to presume that
full exercise of adult responsibilities and rights are not present.  A
presumption is rebuttable.  The difference is that I believe that
biological reality means that asking "why can't a teenager do X" is wrong,
and that the burden of proof is "why CAN they."


But my objections here are not about a difference in perspective.  It is
about responsible leadership in serious issues.  And that does not require
pandering as some have alleged.



But also what you can expect, is that a leader will not subject the Party
and its reputation and its members to messy, inflammatory, ill-thought out
experimental thoughts on the way to a conclusion.  Which is what Arvin has
done three times now.  What he first said about the military is a far cry
from his final polished position.  And just like then, he has published a
reasoned non-salacious op-ed that is a far cry from his initial posts.  And
what now happens is that he points to that and asks what the fuss is?  That
is irresponsible, and honestly, it feels a bit gaslighty.  It is a ----
frankly ---- unhinged.



That last op-ed Arvin published on 71Republic is the type of genuine
disagreement Libertarians have.  (and in it he refuted his own point in
which he called people stupid for thinking that there is a difference
between two immature young people having relations and a 60 year-old doing
the same thing).



This is not the first instance.  A responsible leader doesn't have keyboard
diarrhea to workshop his thoughts in front of the enemies of liberty who
will use that to harm other people.



So my position of opposition is not because age of consent laws are an
untouchable topic.  It is not that we cannot say Libertarian things.  It is
not that we only care about elections or only care about education. It is
that leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to the Party – and that in
this instance, the damage done shows that there is permeability between a
personal page and an official one – particular for a Vice Chair.  That is
reality.  And putting the duty first – which I know some don’t agree with –
means accepting reality.  Just like I think “apparent” conflict of
interests should prompt voluntary recusal – apparent damage in an area
where one thinks they have a “right” to do would cause a leader with duty
to stop.



That is my opinion.  You can not agree.  But there has been so much
polarization and not much listening.



Also to those of you making smear memes trashing Arvin beyond the realm of
any decency, that is old party tactics.  You are causing just as much
damage.  Have some class.  This isn’t fun and games.  That behaviour is
also appalling.



 In conclusion, some have said, well Arvin got the discussion going and
that is good.  I actually think he has poisoned the discussion but that is
irrelevant, and I can only respond that the ends do not justify the means.
Or as the Apostle Paul said, "shall we do evil so that good may result?
May it never be!"



-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*