[Lnc-business] What is Arvin Vohra saying?

Mon Jan 15 01:44:11 EST 2018

With respect to everyone on this board, the fact that the black and white
area of nonconsensual welfare is seen as less of an issue than the grey
area of consent below the government mandated age of majority indicates a
major problem in the party. There are multiple possible libertarian views
on age of consent. A libertarian could, easily, support a government
mandated age of majority. A libertarian could support, as I do, a more
nuanced approach that may involve family, individual, and culture.

Even Libertarians who will argue that a minor cannot give complete consent
will have to admit there are still degrees of consent. A 17.9 year old
woman who is screaming "no" while being coerced against her will is giving
less consent than a 17.9 year old woman who is actively seducing a partner.
I know there are some who doggedly consider these situations identically
nonconsensual, but I hope we can see more nuance than that. There are
degrees here.

On the other hand, there is one possible libertarian view on welfare,
government schools, etc. They are funded without a hint of consent. There
are no degrees or nuance. They are, in no possible libertarian way,
acceptable. Yes, they are popular. But they are wrong. The fact that they
are wrong and popular makes them worse, not better.

Caryn Ann is right. People will do anything for their kids - including
steal for them, or turn a blind eye when the government steals on their
behalfs. Part of our job is to make it clear how not okay that is. Saying,
"Your stealing from me in order to give your kid 'education' is more
nonconsensual than your 14 year old voluntarily dating a 60 year old"
(which it absolutely is), may actually drive the point home. Because the
other overly nice, message-free messaging that many on this board appear to
prefer is not working. It's not a message that has gotten through to
voters, and it hasn't even gotten through to many of our own candidates.
Many of our candidates, many of our *elected officials* openly support
government schools. That is the direct result of being afraid to advocate
anything that takes anything away from anyone - in language blunt enough
for people to actually comprehend.

Let me be more blunt: if we are more upset by a 15 year old giving consent
than we are about millions of adults refusing to give consent, and being
coerced, against their wills, to pay for the childcare costs of others,
something has gone very wrong.

Today, politics is frankly being held hostage to parental sentimentality.
Consider how many hundreds of billions of dollars are stolen and wasted,
based on the "it's for the kids" argument. Consider how fearful many
libertarians are in discussing eradicating theft-funded education.

And it's not just a problem in this issue. Look around at our candidates
and messaging, and you will see a common thread. Few candidates and leaders
are willing to support any policy that involves taking any unjust, tax
funded favor, from anyone.

Finally, I wanted to address the doodling board comment. There, I don't
agree. Our personal pages at non-election times are our doodling boards.
The national page, and our major media discussions are not. Our personal
pages are where we refine our messaging. The time to do that is post
election, before the major phase of the next election season kicks in.

Outside of the most internal Libertarian circles, few people know or care
what I write on my facebook page. Posts on the national page are different,
and in each major media interview, thanks to party growth, I reach more
people in a few minutes than all my personal facebook posts combined have
ever reached. There, the hours of doodling on facebook can pay off in a few
well chosen sentences (on a good and lucky day). Try to keep the scale of
the numbers in mind here. A very "viral" post of mine may reach a few
hundred people. A media clip can reach a few million people.

Perhaps we're outgrowing that level, which would be a very good thing. We
may need to create online focus groups, which could reply to posts in a
controlled environment before they go public.

Anyway, I have an op-ed in 71republic coming out soon on this issue, which
I believe will help radical candidates handle this question. Believe it or
not, it is a question that Anarchists are often asked, and I believe that
the discussions have led to some rhetoric many hardline candidates will be
able to use. It may even embolden a few closet anarchists to run as
anarchists, as it will provide usable answers to one of the questions we
are often asked.

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> Thank you Alicia.  I think there are varied opinions on some of the posts
> and others there is a consensus were just irrationally reckless for a
> leader to make.
>
> This isn't a censoring of opinion, but an expectation on leaders.
>
> One of the statements would read to people "I would rather someone be
> molested by a an adult male predator with a good job than some starry-eyed
> classmate having his first ill-advised venture into intimate relationships
> because it is cheaper for me."  No leader should NOT see how that would be
> taken.  That doesn't even need to get into whether or not anyone agrees
> with current age of consent laws or who should be the "investigating
> authority."  It isn't for saying something "too Libertarian."  It is for
> being callous and reckless and the cutesy background just makes it
> horrifying.
>
> Another is equating acceptable of adult men with a consensual relationship
> to a teen and an adult man (ala Roy Moore) - why choose gay men with the
> implication that perhaps people should view that as unnatural - why be so
> insultingly inflammatory when gay men are often accused of being predators
> by the right?  Why feed into a fear stereotype?  Notice.  None of that
> there is being "too Libertarian" it is being obnoxious and insulting - just
> like we critique Trump.
>
> Another is saying he would "probably" not have a romantic relationship
> with a 14 year old.  How any leader could not see that an educator saying
> that comes off as a creepy uncle vibe and will be the birth of a million
> memes (which it has) with the Libertarian Party name on it, has horrid
> judgment.
>
> Another is saying that a relationship between a 60 year old and a 14 year
> old is EXACTLY THE SAME as two 14 year olds.  It isn't that it "might be
> the same" etc but that it blanket is.
>
> And lastly, there is a huge implication that culture and families are
> right.  Well there are cultures and families that auction off child
> brides.  A leader should know that it requires a lot more nuance than
> that.  How about this?  When are people ready for adult responsibilities,
> including with their bodies?  When they are mature enough to consent with
> the ability to take responsibility.  This isn't always the same for all
> people, so judgments must be made.  Who best knows the people in order to
> judge if they meet those moral qualifications?  Do you think the state is?
>
> SEE?  I made the argument in a reasonable way that connected the dots.
> Just saying "culture and family" without any moral qualifications leads to
> atrocities JUST like arbitrary laws have caused atrocities.
>
> Leaders need to know when dealing with things such as this - children are
> the heart of people heart's - they will kill for their children - that
> cavalier FB snipes are just not appropriate.  Perhaps social media is NOT
> the place at all.  A leader would know that this would strike a nerve with
> people who know that many young people are assualted by adults they know -
> including parents.
>
> So I want to put to rest the martyr syndrome that this is about being "too
> Libertarian."  I hold the same radical anarchist credibility cards that
> Arvin does.  I have no issue with saying Libertarian things. Just being
> allegedly "right" is NOT ENOUGH.  We are stewards of a LEGACY, this isn't
> our personal doodle board.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not all LNC members use Facebook, and even the ones who do may not spend
>> the time to dig through all the comments to see what exactly is or isn't
>> being said by Arvin Vohra on the topic of the day.
>>
>> Attached is a PDF comprised of posts from his Facebook page so you can
>> actually know what the complaints are about.  There may be other posts on
>> other pages, but I only looked at his page.
>>
>> I didn't cherry pick a phrase here and there.  No one can reasonably say
>> I am pulling things out of context.  These are entire posts over several
>> days so you can decide for yourself what he is or isn't saying.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180115/7a553209/attachment-0002.html>