[Lnc-business] Question for Arvin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I will copy and paste what I responded to Arvin on Facebook, and I will not
be responding to him further there. This whole thing is an utter
embarassment to the party and unprofessional, and I will not carry it on
there.   I will alert members that they can read here.

==You say that avoiding a debate would be honorable. ==

CITATION NEEDED.

==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. ==

Did you tell the delegates that when you campaigned? I certainly told those
who would be deciding on me my view. I believe consent matters in full
disclosures too.

And this fails to address the real concerns Arvin. Just like when you went
off the rails on the military thing - your 20th post was pretty good -
leaders don't use social media as their doodling board and then get
indignant and act the hero when those who count on reasoned words say the
behaviour is unacceptable.

This is not about popularity. I don't give a crap about popularity. And the
fact that you keep painting it that way shows that you are not grokking the
issues others are having.

And to act as if there are no issues with age that is just abysmally
irresponsible. Just like a teacher may have sex with another teacher
without any authority issues, that is NOT identical to having sex with
their student - and that is even before age comes into play. To act as if a
60 year old cannot manipulate (or at least there even be the possibility of
it) a young mind is naive and dangerous.

And I said nothing about the government.

I don't think anyone voted for you hoping you would say things like "well
if a 14 year old gets pregnant I would rather it be an employed adult"
without even touching on the issue of consent or readiness but merely
viewing it as a financial transaction with you.

I think delegates in general hope their representatives have a shred of
empathy.

You act as if you are a martyr for questioning age of consent laws.
Newsflash. You aren't. Reason Magazine has been doing it better and longer.
Without saying they "probably wouldn't" think a 14 year old is a potential
romantic partner.

And none of that has to do with the government.

You are raising straw men - at least when it comes to me.

My issue with you isn't that the age of consent laws are sacred. Your
deflections notwithstanding. It is your lack of judgment. Your doubling
down. Your failure to see the utter callousness and damage of your prior
remarks.

That is fine for the average person. It is not fine for an officer of the
LP. It is not enough to be right. You can then plant your flag of victory
on the smoldering ruins of your "righteousness." Horsefeathers.

This isn't your personal grandstand. When you join a group you become
accountable to that group, and have obligations to them. Or tell the people
that before they vote for you.

If you got up at convention and said all of the things you original said
(not after you ran roughshod over decency to "refine" them) you would not
have been elected. You know it. And I know it.

And reality, the LNC isn't going to remove you. You know it. And are
counting on it. I doubt my regional chairs will give me the green light.
But you have lost my trust and my confidence.

But yes I am a representative. This is not my personal crusade to say I can
just say screw what people who have given their blood sweat and tears think.

You know my position. And stop painting me as supporting age of consent
laws because I don't. For multiple reasons. One, justice isn't one size
fits all. I am not a collectivist. Two, our country is based on the premise
that the innocent don't get punished to save even 100 others. And innocents
have been punished unjustly. And for reasons of parsimony. Failure to give
meaningful consent is rape. We already have laws against that and juries
already can take into consideration aggravating factors.

So stop acting as if it is you - alone - against the "government"- and
everyone else is not. That everyone else is just too scared to deal with
the abusive mandatory laws (that also include mandatory sentencing for
other crimes). Bull.

And oh wow, LOOK AT THAT. I MANAGED TO OPPOSE THOSE LAWS WITHOUT MAKING
PEOPLE THINK I AM ADVOCATING CHILD ABUSE.

Wow. it's possible.

When so many people just aren't "getting you" it is time to think that they
are not the problem. You are.  I am tired of the martyr complex. I say all
the same things and somehow manage not to have vast swaths of people
calling for my head.

That a leader cannot do that is not a badge of honour. It is a failure.

My position is clear.  I'm done.  I await further instruction from my
region, if any.

I am not proud of this Party right now.

-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180114/9e7049e8/attachment-0002.html>