[Lnc-business] Consent

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

With all that said though I respect your position.  It is the one I held
the last time.  Why do I feel differently?  Precisely because this isn't
the first time.  It is a repeated and unabashed pattern.  It is a
cumulative issue.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Joshua your comment got spammed :(
>
> With your analysis on suspension, I agree ..... MOSTLY.
>
> I am not making an equivalency here but I think we all accept that there
> ARE statements that would invoke this Bylaw.  Such as advocating genocide.
> I think we all agree.  Then the question is (just like age of consent
> ironically) WHEN is that line crossed.
>
> When does reckless diarrhea of the keyboard become something that must be
> disassociated from?
>
> And I will state once again, this is not (for me) some ideological thing.
> Apparently Arvin thinks it is.  I AGREE with him that the message of our
> last candidates was lacking, but that is the decision of the delegates and
> there was NO sufficient support to disqualify them.  I DISAGREE  that this
> gives us carte blanc to be terrors in the opposite direction.  And in this
> there is MORE support from the states (not just random people on FB who
> probably aren't even members) for a removal action then there was for "bake
> the cake" or other unlibertarian statements.
>
> Stealing from the party - yes, that is a clear issue that this Bylaw
> encompasses.  But I think we all have to agree that it CAN extend to
> reckless speech and harm. Otherwise, we have to say that someone could come
> out full nazi and we would say "well that's just social media."  We
> wouldn't.  Obviously this is not as extreme as THAT but has it crossed the
> line.
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't read the posts.  If there were a motion on this topic, I would,
>> although I doubt it would change my opinion one way or the other.  The
>> reason for that is, as far as I can tell, there's no real disagreement on
>> the key facts here.  Ms. Harlos and Mr. Hayes say that Mr. Vohra is trying
>> to embarrass us into acting in a certain way, and Mr. Vohra seems to
>> agree.  They also say he's doing so in a manner that is harmful and
>> distracting, and Mr. Vohra doesn't seem to really disagree on that either.
>>
>> Mr. Vohra mentions the lives destroyed by sex offender registration.
>> This is a real concern, and someone must stand up for them.  But standing
>> up for those harmed by government overreach is only effective if done in a
>> manner that actually helps them by tending to improve policy.  It does not
>> seem to me that the posts we're discussing are doing anything to change
>> policy, or even that their goal has anything to do with that.  Their goal
>> seems, as I said, to be internally-directed; directed at purifying this
>> party and encouraging, as Mr. Vohra has said in the past, 3/4 (or was it
>> 2/3?) of our members to leave because they aren't pure enough.  I do not
>> agree with that goal, and I think it runs counter to how a party should
>> operate.  Others discuss this very topic without sending people running
>> with pitchforks and torches - Lenore Skenazy comes to mind.  Here, nothing
>> is being accomplished; these posts will not elect  candidates to office,
>> nor will they change the laws being discussed.  (To be clear, I do not
>> think that every change advocated is one that should be accomplished.  I,
>> if it needs to be said [apparently it does] would not support eliminating
>> age of consent laws, and think it is simply a bizarre argument to claim
>> they are morally wrong because the age varies state to state.  There are
>> many things I would change, such as the overuse of registration - in fact,
>> I'd like to eliminate registration.  We do just fine without murder
>> registries or fraud registries, and governments have shown they are not up
>> to the task of running registries in a reasonable manner.  However, I'm not
>> willing to hold registry reform hostage to eliminating registries, and I do
>> not appreciate an effort to hold registry reform hostage to eliminating age
>> of consent laws.)
>>
>> But we are not talking about party communications.  Without Googling,
>> anyone know who the Vice Chair of the Republican Party is?  Democratic
>> Party?  If they said something inflammatory on social media, do you imagine
>> it would get more or less "play" than statements of their parties, or of
>> their candidates?  If they did not identify themselves, is it likely their
>> candidates would be tarred by what they say, or that voters would even pick
>> up on the connection?  Our problem is that we're forced to care about the
>> off-work postings of members of this board, because it appears, in some
>> cases, our amplifiers are larger than that of the party and its
>> candidates.  Mr. Vohra, at least the last time this came up here, wasn't
>> claiming to speak for the party, and in fact explicitly disclaimed doing
>> so.  Yet many perceive him as speaking for us.  That's a PR problem just as
>> real as Mr. Vohra's poor messaging.  Yes, the Republicans face the same
>> problem, but with the President of the United States, not their Vice
>> Chair.  No party can speak over the President, and the President's every
>> word is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being approved by the party.  (I
>> say wrongly, but the reality is that this is how it is perceived.)  We
>> should be able to have a good electoral message, and broadcast it more
>> loudly than the words of board members.
>>
>> Just in case you're wondering, if a motion were made, I'd investigate the
>> facts, and almost certainly vote no.  I believe there are uses for our
>> suspension procedure, and that making statements on social media which I
>> dislike, or think harmful, or think despicable, simply is not one of them.
>> Self-dealing, stealing party assets, and so forth, would be.  This sort of
>> decision, though, is one for the delegates, not for us.  If we go down the
>> path of eliminating members of this board for what they say on social
>> media, while not representing this party, we'd wind up kicking all of us
>> off.  Mr. Vohra seems to disagree with me, in this very email, by
>> disparaging the decisions of the delegates, but that does not change my
>> view.  It is not, in my opinion, correct to override the preference of the
>> delegates simply because we do not like the outcome, or a portion of it.
>> Outside of his social media, I don't think anyone disputes that Mr. Vohra
>> discharges his board responsibilities well, and I appreciate his thoughtful
>> debate and votes on the actual decisions of this board, even if I often
>> disagree.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel.  NAILED IT.
>>>
>>> ===Instead we will be/are inundated with calls for us to oust you by
>>> people misrepresenting what you said.  At least I think they are.  Of
>>> course you put out so many other posts about it, I can’t be sure. ===
>>>
>>> Me either.  Because Arvin chooses a public forum to "spitball" and
>>> "refine" his points.  Which is fine when you are dealing with a recipe for
>>> green bean casserole.  Not when you are talking about vulnerable members of
>>> society.  Children.  By the tenth post of ranting who the hell knows what
>>> is even the point.
>>>
>>> Reason Magazine has done many articles on the issues with age of consent
>>> laws, young people wrongly on sex offender lists, and how the state makes a
>>> despicable issue worse.  They do it with scholarly analysis.  Not FB
>>> shit-posting.
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> You are yet ANOTHER defender of the one true faith.  Here you are to
>>> save us from ourselves.===
>>>
>>> So much this.  And I am quite the faith defender myself.  But I DEEPLY
>>> RESENT being forced into territory that is stealing my time.  I don't need
>>> Arvin to save me or anyone from the "Bob Barr" boogeymen.  I can handle
>>> myself, my topics, and my time without that.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:31 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Freud was at work;
>>>>
>>>> “Pitchfork in your hand”.
>>>>
>>>> I think my subconscious is equating you with the devil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 2018, at 3:28 AM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Arvin,
>>>>
>>>> What do you actually think you are accomplishing? Even many Anarchists
>>>> are not seeing what you said.  I saw a guy say “get Government out of it.”
>>>>  The problem is MOST people including anarchists,Ancaps, etc. saw you say
>>>> “I support adults having sex with kids”
>>>>
>>>> You are yet ANOTHER defender of the one true faith.  Here you are to
>>>> save us from ourselves.  Instead what you have done apparently is get even
>>>> much of your base running around screaming for your head with a pitchfork
>>>> in your hand.
>>>>
>>>> Then of course the opportunists are coming out of the woodwork.
>>>>
>>>> In the mean time, Larry Sharpe has become possibly the first
>>>> Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate to raise over $100k on his first report.
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/LarrySharpe4Gov/posts/1906178679711825
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Hewitt is starting to get real serious attention with his win over
>>>> “Big Fire” in California.
>>>> https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/06/tiny-calimesas-firefig
>>>> hter-changes-should-be-model-for-state/
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Starr(and Alicia) pulled off one of the biggest recalls in US
>>>> history and now he is running for Mayor of Oxnard and is a REAL contender.
>>>> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.vcstar.com/amp/991376001
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then there is that Sarwark guy running for the non partisan seat of
>>>> Mayor of Phoenix, that nobody knows is a Libertarian. Cause it’s not like
>>>> he is National Chairman of the Party or lists it on his website or anything.
>>>> https://sarwarkforphoenix.com/
>>>>
>>>> [image: image2.jpeg]
>>>>
>>>> Instead, another one of your posts, that has gone over even most active
>>>> LPer’s heads, is probably going to dominate the Liberty movement over the
>>>> next week or two. And once again, probably NOT for the better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On top of this, I got off the phone just yesterday with a certain Fox
>>>> star’s producer. They are just about a done deal for speaking at the
>>>> convention for “cost”.  This is JUST about the right timing to come across
>>>> their feeds and make them say... “maybe not”. So I get to spend he next
>>>> week wondering if it goes south.
>>>>
>>>> So much for all of those “Libertarians working for you.”
>>>>
>>>> Instead we will be/are inundated with calls for us to oust you by
>>>> people misrepresenting what you said.  At least I think they are.  Of
>>>> course you put out so many other posts about it, I can’t be sure.
>>>>
>>>> So back to it. Tell me exactly how the hell these posts of yours helped
>>>> the Party. Heck, tell me what you think they actually did.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 2018, at 1:09 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Arvin, let me be blunt.  I do not buy for a second that you have any
>>>> sympathies for any "difficulties" your massive lack of judgment and
>>>> insensitive ham-handed ways of dealing with serious topics.  Your
>>>> sympathies do little to negate the fact that more of our time and resources
>>>> is spent cleaning up YOUR messes.  I for one, am tired of it.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't only state what you claim above.  You went far further and
>>>> completely lacked tact and nuance.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> LNC-
>>>>>
>>>>> First, let me express my sympathy for the difficulties many of you
>>>>> have faced over the last couple days, on account of my view that family,
>>>>> culture, and individuals, not government, should determine if a person is
>>>>> ready to give sexual consent. Those who have read my longer posts on the
>>>>> topic probably find material you agree with. Or perhaps not, but probably
>>>>> nothing explosively sensational. Any future posts on this topic, which I
>>>>> probably won't bring up given it's minor budgetary cost, will probably be
>>>>> written in a comparatively non-inflammatory way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know many of you are weary of dealing with local responses to my
>>>>> social media posts. I would encourage those of you in this position to
>>>>> write, publicly, clearly, and comprehensibly on any of these topics. If age
>>>>> of consent is too incendiary, fine, write on government schools. Or
>>>>> military enlistment. Or military policy. Or social security. Or medicare.
>>>>> Or anything past soda taxes, hemp, and the federal Department of Education
>>>>> (a whopping 10% of the total welfare spend on education). If you don't want
>>>>> to be rude, fine, be polite. Just be honest, and be Libertarian.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I look through social media of the LP leadership, LP candidates,
>>>>> and general media, I find that the most accurate representation of
>>>>> Libertarian positions today are coming from our opponents. As an example,
>>>>> our enemies say that we want to end public education; our candidates and
>>>>> leaders deny it. Will it be just me and our enemies that put forward
>>>>> complete Libertarian positions? I can't imagine that we want that.
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of sexual consent, as far as I know, the only Libertarians I
>>>>> know who have spoken on this topic at all are the elected Libertarian
>>>>> councilman who initially posted on the issue, Dr. Ruwart, and me. And when
>>>>> you silence the Dr. Ruwarts of the world, you end up being a party okay
>>>>> with nominating Bob Barr.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also telling the extent to which those who have had their lives,
>>>>> and the lives of their loved ones destroyed by current age of consent laws
>>>>> have only felt okay messaging me privately, fearing the extent of the
>>>>> histrionic public backlashes against anyone who goes against the unspoken
>>>>> rules which so many so vigorously enforce. A few minutes ago, I learned of
>>>>> a 20 year odld who dated a 17 year old for months, then found out she had
>>>>> been lying about her age, and is now a registered sex offender. Should he
>>>>> have had his own read ID scanner? Perhaps.
>>>>>
>>>>> People are so terrified of being labelled perverts (with good reason),
>>>>> that they will not stand up for clear violations of decency. And as a
>>>>> party, we are so afraid of having the wrong spin or whatever it is that
>>>>> we're acting spineless. Even casual observation shows us that age of
>>>>> consent laws cannot be morally right, given that they are *different
>>>>> in different states*!
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't like how I speak against government school and government
>>>>> funded school, fine. Use your own words. Or send me your own words, and
>>>>> I'll post it under my name. The military welfare complex? Speak on the
>>>>> topic however you like. Age of consent? Same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I write on any of these issues better? Of course. Life is about
>>>>> learning and improving. But censuring ourselves, lying about our positions
>>>>> and principles, and waiting for our literal enemies to be the only ones who
>>>>> present our views isn't the answer. Refusing to stand up for those who
>>>>> don't have the right optics for our current politicking is cowardice, not
>>>>> political cleverness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>>
>>>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>>> Vice Chair
>>>>> LNC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180114/1ec0637f/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image2.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 87070 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180114/1ec0637f/attachment-0002.jpeg>