[Lnc-business] Consent

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

This!  The issue of Arvin's comment is that there's a pattern of
ill-advised, insulting, and inflammatory rhetoric toward people in
society.  Disdain for our members, their families and lives.  He treats
everyone like they're sinners, and he's there to judge them.  This is a
is destructive to the party, as the LP is made up of people! 
Non-perfect, ordinary people. When they feel insulted, devalued, and
told they're bad statists, they don't feel welcome.  They don't feel
like the LP is the place for them, nor that the LP shares their values. 


Add in that some of Arvin's statements appear to embrace actions that
many people find endangers children and others, it's not surprising that
our counties and states are bleeding out members.  We're losing people,
and even if we were flush with millions it would be poor party
management to let it go unabated.  But, we're small, so the damage is
that much larger to us.  

The LNC is about party management. If this body can't do the simple task
of removing a harmful element, then we're not doing the service we
signed up for. 

---
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 2018-01-15 01:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> 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 [1] 
> 
> 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-firefighter-changes-should-be-model-for-state/ [2] 
> 
> 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 [3] 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 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 [4]
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634 [5] 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [6]

> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [6]

> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [6]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [6]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [6]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [6]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 

Links:
------
[1] https://www.facebook.com/LarrySharpe4Gov/posts/1906178679711825
[2]
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/06/tiny-calimesas-firefighter-changes-should-be-model-for-state/
[3] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.vcstar.com/amp/991376001
[4] http://www.VoteVohra.com
[5] tel:(301)%20320-3634
[6] 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/20180115/6a120ade/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/20180115/6a120ade/attachment-0002.jpeg>