[Lnc-business] Question for Arvin

Sun Jan 14 00:47:16 EST 2018

Dear Ms. Harlos,

Thank you for your question. I hope you won't mind my giving a thorough
answer to this serious question.

In such a serious issue, I would certainly consider the rationale. If the
root of the issue is that I am insufficiently nice to government school
teachers and users, or to members of the federal governemnt's army, then I
will do my best to explain that part of our job is to fight for value
hierarchies that make sense. Those who use government schools, charter
schools, or other forms of tax-funded education, for example, should not be
seen as equal to those who use homeschooling or private schooling, any more
than those who use welfare should be seen as equal to those who have jobs,
or those who have sex without consent should be seen as equal to those who
have sex with consent. Fighting for value hierarchies is a major part of
politics. I would argue it's the most important part of politics. It has
been a part of politics for every political movement that I know of. I know
that the "nice at all costs" approach disagrees with that, but sometimes
integrity does involve denigrating what should be denigrated. Welfarism
should be knocked off of any pedestal it somehow manages to approach.

The fact that today's LP, in part due to the strategies of our 2016 ticket,
is has a few people who don't understand liberty, or are actively working
against it. The 2016 campaign literally advertised outside of military
bases - not "Leave NATO" billboards, just the usual soldier worship that
has been so damaging to America. The result of that, and other strategies,
is that many of those in the LP believe that we are the party of "Not Trump
or Hillary", rather than the party of "Not Government." Part of our
responsibility is to educate these people as well as we can about liberty,
with gentle words when that's enough, and with a metaphorical smack in the
nose when it's not enough.

More likely, if such a request came this week, it would be about my view on
consent laws, which I continue to believe are both flawed in their
fundamental nature, and abused in their practice. I don't think one size
fits all. I don't think putting teenagers on sex offender registries for
sexting each other, privately, consensually, is okay.

I understand and accept that you and I disagree about the nature of
readiness and consent. I believe that consent readiness is individual, best
determined by families and culture, and should not involve the government
at all. I also believe that readiness is readiness. If someone understands
sex well enough to be able to give informed and active consent to a 16 year
old, they can give informed and active consent to a 60 year old. Each
person's preferences are different; as long as no one is using force or
fraud, I don't have a problem. You and I disagree on this issue. I respect
your view, and hope to continue to learn from it. Behind some of the
vitriol within your posts, I have discovered the nuanced and thoughtful
analyses I generally have seen from you. I have found your perspectives
educational, and I do believe that your views will influence my own path of
consideration of these issues.

I know that you and I also disagree on the nature of Libertarian leadership
itself. You view it as a primarily representative role. I understand that
position and respect it. I view it as a moral calling. The central part of
that calling, in my view, is political courage and moral steadfastness.

Let me draw a parallel. You and I agree in ending the drug war. Now let's
say that someone on drugs does something heinous, and it's all over the
news. The social tide swings the other way, with many people, including
Libertarians, demanding support for the drug war. It may sound impossible,
but do remember that today many Libertarians support government schools,
which is the least Libertarian position possible. Also note that our own
2008 presidential candidate supported the drug war, and our 2016 candidate
was mostly silent on the topic (past marijuana). Now suppose that
Libertarians become pro-drug war. You speak out against the drug war.
Libertarians tell you, correctly, that in this new political climate, that
view is politically damaging.

If you look at your role as purely representative, your response should be
to shut up or resign, in that case. But I believe that there is more to
political leadership than being a yes man or yes woman to prevailing moods.
When those moods are a first emotional response to a highly controversial
subject, there is even more importance to being more than a yes man or yes
woman.

In 2016, I could not vote for you, since I wasn't in your region. But I
would have, and not because I suspected that we agree on many issues. I
voted for, and supported, Chair Sarwark, despite knowing for certain that
we disagree on some major issues.

When I vote, I'm not voting for a lever. Anyone can be a lever, who votes
by counting votes rather than by conscience. A computer program or excel
spreadsheet can do that. When I vote for someone, I'm voting for more than
that. I'm voting for someone of backbone and substance, who will stand up
for what is right even if I myself waver. I want someone who will debate
the issues that matter in LNC meetings or in public. I want someone who
might persuade me.

When I was elected in 2016, I took that responsibility seriously. I deeply
believe that responsibility includes standing up for what is right,
engaging the debates that matter, and certainly not preemptively giving up
on an issue just because I'm on the less popular side.

You say that avoiding a debate would be honorable. I would consider it
deeply dishonorable, and a gross dereliction of duty. I believe that at
least some people voted for me hoping that I would have some moral compass
and strength of character. I believe that they hoped I would stand up for
my understanding of Liberty, and perhaps even persuade others. I think very
few voted for me in the hope that I would preemptively give up on a
discussion on a serious issue, just because I was on the unpopular side. A
person who cannot fight the unpopular side certainly has no place in
Libertarian leadership, but I would argue that such a person has no place
in any kind of leadership.

The LNC and delegate certainly have the ability to remove me. I do hope
they will engage in a discussion and debate on the topic first, and that I
will be allowed to speak on this vital issue, but the LNC and delegates
also have the right to do this entire action without any debate at all.

But until that is done, I will continue to serve my duties, including the
most important duty of fighting for the views I consider right, even when,
especially when, they are currently unpopular.

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> And if it can be shown, the responsible thing to do is honour the will of
> who we represent and not force this body into a destructive removal vote.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:28 PM Elizabeth Van Horn <
> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Understanding that Caryn Ann's question isn't bylaws related, but a
>> general "ask" to another LNC member, I second the "ask".
>>
>> Arvin, is there a situation whereby a percent (or number) of LP state
>> affiliates would request you resign, and you'd do it?  Because, you
>> represent ALL the state affiliates as a Vice-Chair, and everyone of those
>> states is your constituency.
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>
>>
>> On 2018-01-13 15:35, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> Now that you have those of us who are regional representatives having to
>> spend our long weekend on your exhibition rather than our families - I have
>> a question.
>>
>> If X number of states ask you to resign, will you?  And what is that
>> number?
>>
>> Or would a no confidence statement from the affiliates mean nothing?
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>> --
>> *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*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>

-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180114/b7d89471/attachment-0002.html>