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

Tue Apr 3 10:33:54 EDT 2018

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 mewe.com. The joke
was in poor taste, and I have already apologized for it, and clarified my
actual position (specifically, that I don't advocate for shooting school
boards. I would have considered that obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost
in social media).

But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the cognitive dissonance that
is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day, I hear taxation is
theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say taxation is theft (they are a
great way to support the LP and spread the message). We agree that taxation
is an immoral violation of your sacred rights.

We also have routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they are for
opposing government overreach. I've spoken officially on this issue. I've
said this to cheering Libertarian and Conservative groups, to furious
progressive groups. I know many of you have made the same argument.

We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob us and use the
money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign wars, and government
schools. A few minutes later, we talk about how guns are necessary to block
government tyranny and overreach.

I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I
consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters who
wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny that would be
great enough to morally justify using violence in self defense?

Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a victimless crime not
enough moral justification? Is having your son or daughter locked up in
such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being robbed to have your
money used to bomb people in other countries, in your name not enough?

What level of tyranny would morally justify using the Second Amendmend for
what it was designed for?

Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no plans to ever
advocate violence against the state. I consider it unnecessary. I believe
that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not needed to fight
the state. I consider it unlikely to work. As long as the state keeps
duping young men and women to join its enforcement arm, I can't imagine any
violent revolution lasting more than a few minutes.

As someone who trained for many years in the martial arts, I also consider
it against my personal principles to use a greater response than what is
needed. I believe in the doctrine of minimal force, which is why I work
within the LP, not within a citizen militia.

But is using a gun to defend yourself against state violence immoral? God
no. And violence certainly includes any violation done under threat of
violence.

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian Party

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt <jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> wrote:

> I vote Yes.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative
>
>
> On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Yes
>>
>> ---
>> Sam Goldstein
>> Libertarian National Committee
>> 317-850-0726 Cell
>>
>> On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>
>>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>>    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at 11:59:59pm
>>>    Pacific time.
>>>
>>>    Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein, Redpath,
>>>    Hewitt, O'Donnell
>>>    Motion:
>>>    WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of force as
>>> its
>>>    cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify that they
>>>    neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve political or
>>>    social goals.
>>>    RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin Vohra
>>>    from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated
>>> unacceptable
>>>    conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into
>>>    disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating
>>> lethal
>>>    violence against state employees who are not directly threatening
>>>    imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our membership
>>>    pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our movement
>>> and
>>>    the security of all of our members without their consent.
>>>    -Alicia
>>>
>>

-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
   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]mewe.com. The joke was in poor taste, and I have already apologized
   for it, and clarified my actual position (specifically, that I don't
   advocate for shooting school boards. I would have considered that
   obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost in social media).
   But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the cognitive dissonance
   that is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day, I hear
   taxation is theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say taxation is
   theft (they are a great way to support the LP and spread the message).
   We agree that taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred rights.
   We also have routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they are
   for opposing government overreach. I've spoken officially on this
   issue. I've said this to cheering Libertarian and Conservative groups,
   to furious progressive groups. I know many of you have made the same
   argument.
   We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob us and use the
   money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign wars, and
   government schools. A few minutes later, we talk about how guns are
   necessary to block government tyranny and overreach.
   I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I
   consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters
   who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny that
   would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self
   defense?
   Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a victimless crime not
   enough moral justification? Is having your son or daughter locked up in
   such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being robbed to have your
   money used to bomb people in other countries, in your name not enough?
   What level of tyranny would morally justify using the Second Amendmend
   for what it was designed for?
   Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no plans to ever
   advocate violence against the state. I consider it unnecessary. I
   believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not
   needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work. As long as
   the state keeps duping young men and women to join its enforcement arm,
   I can't imagine any violent revolution lasting more than a few minutes.
   As someone who trained for many years in the martial arts, I also
   consider it against my personal principles to use a greater response
   than what is needed. I believe in the doctrine of minimal force, which
   is why I work within the LP, not within a citizen militia.
   But is using a gun to defend yourself against state violence immoral?
   God no. And violence certainly includes any violation done under threat
   of violence.
   Respectfully,
   Arvin Vohra
   Vice Chair
   Libertarian Party

   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt <[2]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
   wrote:

     I vote Yes.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative

   On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:

     Yes
     ---
     Sam Goldstein
     Libertarian National Committee
     [3]317-850-0726 Cell
     On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:

     We have an electronic mail ballot.
        Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at
     11:59:59pm
        Pacific time.
        Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein, Redpath,
        Hewitt, O'Donnell
        Motion:
        WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of force
     as its
        cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify that
     they
        neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve political
     or
        social goals.
        RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin
     Vohra
        from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated
     unacceptable
        conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into
        disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating
     lethal
        violence against state employees who are not directly threatening
        imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our
     membership
        pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our
     movement and
        the security of all of our members without their consent.
        -Alicia

   --
   Arvin Vohra
   [4]www.VoteVohra.com
   [5]VoteVohra at gmail.com
   (301) 320-3634

References

   1. http://mewe.com/
   2. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
   3. tel:317-850-0726
   4. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   5. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com