[Lnc-business] Fwd: Re: Recent VC Comments

[david.demarest at lp.org]

Good discussion!

Here are the choices in a top-down representative democracy electoral 
system as applied to a possible vote on the suspension or removal 
motion.

First, take a poll of the constituents (an obviously flawed process). 
Let's say the 60% of the vocal constituents favor approval. 30% favor 
rejection. and 10% don't care. Wishes of the silent minority are 
unknown. Let's say the dictates of my conscience favor rejecting the 
motion.

Now, the question is, whose dictates of conscience am I going to screw 
over, the vocal majority, the vocal minority, the silent minority, or 
mine. Hmmmm. Could there be a moral flaw in the top-down representative 
democracy electoral system?

However, have no doubt about how I would vote.

The solution to this moral dilemma is beyond the scope of this 
discussion except to say that the independent Roads to Freedom 
Foundation is focused on building bottom-up entrepreneurial 
private-sector social services, competitive governance, and bottom-up 
collaborative leadership by example. Guess what, our foundation does not 
suffer from the obvious moral dilemma presented in the previous 
paragraph.

Food for thought.

~David Pratt Demarest


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Re: Recent VC Comments
Date: 2018-01-15 18:02
 From: david.demarest at lp.org
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Reply-To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org

Amen. I just had one disappear into the ether. Actually, I think it went 
to Caryn Ann. I will figure out how to resend it. Thanks to the IT folks 
that are working hard to solve the issue.

~David

On 2018-01-15 17:48, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
> Well, this illustrates that we're both wrestling with the reply
> feature.  *laughing*
> 
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> 
> I understand.
> 
> Although, I don't see where he called anyone cowards.   I think his
> "sign of fear" verbiage is more alluding to how others may perceive
> it.   Plus, having fear isn't the same as being a coward.  Everyone
> has fear.  I had fear before I made the motion, as I knew it would
> open an ugly can of worms.  : (
> 
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> 
> On 2018-01-15 18:40, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> 
>> When people are called cowards it is personal. Larry is usually way
>> more precise than that.
>> 
>> And as we learned with Arvin, how a message is received is just as
>> important as how it was intended.
>> 
>> In the past he has always exemplified that, so I am asking for that
>> now.
>> 
>> I will drop it after this post.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn
>> <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Caryn Ann,
>> 
>> I know that you'd probably co-sponsor the motion I made, (and maybe
>> even vote in favor) except that you wish to abide by your Region's
>> wishes.  I respect that.
>> 
>> I'm in the same situation, only in reverse. For instance, all this
>> time, I PERSONALLY have told everyone that the way to remove Arvin
>> is to vote him out at the 2018 NOLA convention. That was, and still
>> is, my personal position.
>> 
>> But, I want to be able to give voice to the LP members in Region 3.
>> That's what I signed up for, and that's what I told the Regional
>> chairs I'd do. Other than out-of-hand unethical actions, I'll try to
>> stick to what Region 3 wants. (Even if it's something I personally
>> wouldn't do.) Because, now I'm representing hundreds of LP members
>> and it would be disingenuous for me to take on that role, and push
>> my personal views onto those who entrusted me.
>> 
>> Larry Sharpe's commentary isn't a personal judgement of you, or
>> others, who may decide to not support the motion.  It's his view on
>> the RESPONSIBILITIES of the LNC role. His personal opinion.  Larry's
>> not impugning your character or motivations.  He's saying what he
>> thinks is the "responsibility" of the LNC members.  Just as there
>> are LP members saying that they think my responsibility should be to
>> my conscience, as that's how *they* view the LNC role.  I don't take
>> it personal, if it's not directed at me, or a smear on motivations.
>> 
>> I don't think Larry is indicating a judgement on your character or
>> others who might act accordingly.
>> 
>> ---
>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>> 
>> On 2018-01-15 17:17, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> 
>> FYI - Many times my region says - we leave it to you.  That is their
>> prerogative.  Not mine. This also protects small states to have an
>> equal voice.  Montana knows that they have equal pull with me. They
>> don't have to worry that me, a Coloradoan, may let unconscious
>> prejudice for my home state to creep in.  I feel pretty fiercely
>> about this.  I don't mind a disagreement.   I do mind greatly a
>> judgment on my character.  To put it mildly.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> In my opinion we do what we promised to do when elected. If YOUR
>> region has no issue with that, that is YOUR prerogative. Region 1
>> elected me on certain premises.  It is patently unfair and
>> inflammatory to suggest that I am a coward or shirking my
>> responsibility if I do what they elected me to do.  Seriously Larry,
>> that is not right.  Don't make yourself wrong when you are right in
>> everything else you said.
>> 
>> If I felt I could NOT keep that promise, I would resign.  But I
>> really take offense at you judging what the agreement is between me
>> and my region.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Larry Sharpe
>> <govsharpe at larrysharpe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Caryn Ann,
>> 
>> In my opinion, we are representatives. We should vote on what we
>> feel is best. As acting Region 8 rep in December, I voted for Austin
>> for the 2020 convention, when my region might have asked for
>> Atlanta. If they had asked for Atlanta, I still would have voted for
>> Austin and I would have explained my vote. Reps like Amash and
>> Massie do this all the time. I assume that they select us to use our
>> knowledge, insight and judgement. They would have the option of
>> accepting my explanation or asking me to step down or demanding my
>> removal. All good. If Patrick does not want to handle this issue and
>> I need to step in as Region 8 Rep, I will vote yes to removal
>> regardless of my states because I know that it is the best thing to
>> do. They can ask for my explanation, my removal or both. All good. I
>> think you should do what you think is best.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Do you agree that regionals should vote yes regardless of the wishes
>> of their region?  Because that is what he said.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Dustin Nanna <dustin.nanna at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Could not agree more Larry
>> 
>> Dustin Nanna
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate
>> 
>> Vice Chair/Deputy Communications Director
>> Libertarian Party of Ohio
>> 
>> (740) 816-9805 [1]
>> 
>> On Jan 15, 2018 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Larry, great minds think alike ;)  I posted a similar letter
>> about ten minutes ago.
>> 
>> I will disagree sharply on one point however.
>> 
>> Regional Representatives have a duty to their region.  To say that a
>> regional should not vote the way their region wants is an abdication
>> or fear.  I actually take sharp offense at that.  I have been the
>> most outspoken in the past few days.  I am not afraid.  My personal
>> position is clear.  But my region expects me to represent THEM and
>> if they don't want us to take action - though I disagree - that is
>> their right to make.  Please be more careful in making such
>> judgments against your peers.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Larry Sharpe
>> <govsharpe at larrysharpe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear LNC,
>> 
>> With the most recent comments and controversy regarding our
>> Vice-Chair, Arvin Vohra, we find ourselves in another quagmire,
>> wasting our time and efforts, dividing us and making us look
>> unprofessional once again.
>> 
>> The key word is again. This is no longer about Arvin. For clarity, I
>> am not angry at him at all. This is about us and our failures. We
>> are here again because of our inaction. This is our fault; our
>> responsibility. We cannot prevent all of these issues before they
>> arise, but we can certainly act every time they do. I am
>> disappointed in our organization. We need to be better, bolder and
>> smarter.
>> 
>> Arvin bullied many of our constituents last year (Veterans,
>> Military, Teachers, Parents, etc...) and we did nothing. We hid
>> behind policy and procedure, cowering, hoping the bully would just
>> go away. His enablers tried to intimidate and squelch us. And
>> together, with our inaction, we empowered Arvin to do more. So, he
>> did.
>> 
>> Now, as he bullies even more and moves into the realm of children,
>> will we fail again? Please no! This time we must act. We must act
>> quickly and decisively, or we will pay tenfold in the future. There
>> are three reasons why we must:
>> 
>> Moral: We have created this bully, by standing by while his enablers
>> created false narratives and fantasy scenarios and pressured us by
>> selfishly invoking our "values" for their needs. These enablers are
>> flunky bullies that defend Arvin so that they can bully too. As they
>> silence us, they punish our members, our donors, our candidates and
>> our advocates.  Good leaders do not let that happen.
>> 
>> Practical: To make change in this nation, we need to grow our party.
>> Alienating has proven to fail. Democrats called Vietnam Vets
>> "baby-killers" when they came home. How did that work out?  His
>> enablers will say that we are not being honest. They are wrong. We
>> can be honest without being mean. We can be principled without
>> alienating. These enabling-petty tyrants see little value in growth
>> that may lessen their control of their local fiefdom. Good leaders
>> can see the big picture and act accordingly.
>> 
>> Professional: NO other public professional organization in the
>> country would accept this behavior. As an officer in a public
>> organization, your speech (public or private) represents that
>> organization. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant and we see
>> that EVERYWHERE. Some of Arvin's enablers think that private
>> opinions are somehow immune. These are the thoughts of naïve
>> idealists.  When you voluntarily take a position in a public
>> organization, you also volunteer to curb your speech, both public
>> and private. If you are not prepared to do that, you shouldn't
>> accept the position. Good leaders must hold their own accountable.
>> 
>> 
>> This is not about Arvins's correctness, nor his attitude. It isn't
>> about him at all. Because an "Arvin" will always pop up here and
>> there. It is about us. Do we have the moral courage as an
>> organization to quell behavior that is both impractical and
>> unprofessional, or not? Will we set the precedent and create the
>> environment within this organization that promotes growth with
>> principle and communication with compassion and support our
>> candidates and advocates, so we can make real impact in our nation?
>> Or will we encourage angry pettiness and stay in the basement of
>> history smugly watching as our rights get voted away, but feeling
>> warm in our righteousness?
>> 
>> I realize that acting will cause strife in our party. We have strife
>> already. This strife is required growing pain for us to make the
>> next step. If we don't accept this short-term pain for long-term
>> gain, we will suffer even more, as the recent issues from our
>> inaction last year have shown.
>> 
>> We must prioritize this and vote to remove Arvin from his position
>> now.  Anything else shows that we will kowtow to bullies, that we
>> are ill prepared to lead and that we are not ready for the big
>> leagues. As we grow in stature and influence, the nation will be
>> watching.
>> 
>> There is a second motion (the 2nd in less than a year) from the
>> Region 3 Rep, Elisabeth Van Horn, to remove Arvin. The first motion
>> came from Region 8 Rep, Patrick McKnight, last year. We need to
>> second either motion and vote on it as soon as possible.
>> 
>> An abstention in this vote is an abdication of responsibility and a
>> sign of fear. We need to be bold more than ever. The buck must stop
>> somewhere. Let it stop here. A no vote validates this behavior and
>> encourages more of it. Let's not be here again in 6 months wasting
>> more time and energy.
>> 
>> We must not hide. Let's get this done now. If we don't, we will
>> hamper our growth, handicap our candidates and discourage our
>> advocates.
>> 
>> Let's fix this.
>> 
>> Larry Sharpe
>> 
>> Region 8 Rep Alternate, LNC
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Larry
>> 
>> LARRY SHARPE
>> Larry Sharpe for Governor [2]
>> 445 Park Ave, 9th Floor [3]
>> New York, NY 10022 [3] [4]   [5] [6]  [7]
> 
> --
> 
>  Larry
> 
> LARRY SHARPE
> Larry Sharpe for Governor [2]
> 445 Park Ave, 9th Floor [3]
> New York, NY 10022 [3] [4]   [5] [6]  [7]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] tel:(740)%20816-9805
> [2] http://www.larrysharpe.com/
> [3]
> https://maps.google.com/?q=445+Park+Ave,+9th+FloorNew+York,+NY+10022&entry=gmail&source=g
> [4] https://www.facebook.com/LarrySharpe4Gov/
> [5] https://twitter.com/LarrySharpe
> [6] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp2EegvSGEsgc-diPwc0ZHQ
> [7] https://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage/
> _______________________________________________
> 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