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

[Arvin Vohra]

LNC -

I have argued for the last months that for us to engage in serious
politics, we must engage in the relevant culture wars, as the major parties
do, as all major political movements have in human history. I've indicated
my belief that we, as a party, have essentially internalized the values of
our opposition. Sure, we're willing to say "Taxation is Theft", but it's
become more of an in-group code phrase than a substantive opinion.

Mr. Sharpe's email drives my point home far better than I could. The email
suggests that my words have bullied government school teachers, soldiers in
the federal government's army, parents who use tax-funded schools, etc.

Consider that. These are groups whose livelihoods are funded against my
direct will, without my consent, with my absolute opposition. We are
talking about the enforcement and propaganda arms of the state, funded
through force. And I am somehow the bully for pointing that out. Sure, I
point it out in ways designed to provoke a response, but note that when you
respond to violence and threats with words, even if those words are
aggressive, you are replying with far less than a proportional response. If
replying to coercion with mean words is bullying, then sure, I'm a bully.

In addition to the attacking posts, I also generally have the "remove the
excuse" posts, that are designed to show people alternatives to government
school or alternatives to joining the military. I even post some of those
alternatives on my business site.

And please spare me the "individual parents don't have a choice" nonsense.
Each parent can choose to opt out of government school, and that generally
lowers the annual public school costs (while usually benefiting their
kids).

I know that my views are in direct conflict with state propaganda, the kind
that tells us that being part of public school is patriotic and
responsible. But they are in direct accord with the Libertarian Party
platform.

This is what it means to reject the cult of the state. It means to be
willing to say, "Even if the state puts this thing on a pedestal, it can
still be bad. It can still be our responsibility to knock it off the
pedestal."

The initial email could not better represent the assumptions of state
worship if it tried. It argues that I spoke against parents and teachers.
False. I spoke against teachers who work at government schools, and parents
who use them. I get that those groups don't appreciate having the bubbles
of sentimentality around them popped, but frankly, I don't appreciate being
robbed, and then have to listen to sanctimonious nonsense about my
responsibility to pay for someone else's kids. I don't have one.

When "teacher" becomes shorthand for "government school teacher" or "public
school teacher", we have an issue. When we ourselves are using that
shorthand, we have a problem.

None of this is to say that I believe Mr. Sharpe, or anyone on this board,
is a statist. I don't. But if even one of our most principled, savvy, and
experienced leaders are subconsciously buying into the value systems of our
opponents, we have work to do.

One of my posts that did not, as far as I know, get reported to the LNC
was: "Sex work is work. Government 'work' is theft." Sex work makes people
squeamish. Government work is, according to the government, "respectable."
But by libertarian values, that is reversed. Sex workers are not funded
through theft. Government workers are. Sex jobs can exist in a LIbertarian
world. Government work, by and large, cannot. Are statements that rank sex
work above "respectable" jobs going to go directly against statist value
systems? I certainly hope so.

We often sneeringly talk about how government has normalized welfare in
various communities. We talk about how in various inner city and rural
communities, welfare has become the default, and we look down our nose as
those who fall into that system. It's, "Look how lazy and stupid those
people are, who can't see that welfare isn't a real way to live." Can we
not apply that same insight to middle class communities where government
schooling has become the norm? What's the issue? Is it that middle class
people are respectable, but poor people aren't? Can we reject the
respectability judgments of the state? Can we understand that votes from
the millions of current and former homeschool and private school families,
which are many times the total Johnson votes, are just as valuable as the
public school PTA votes we seem obsessed with? That votes and support from
sex workers is just as valuable, and without the moral conflicts, as votes
from the police and military?

In terms of the recent discussion about consent - sure, that could have
been handled more effectively by having a long and thorough post much
earlier. I know that many believe that the correct way to handle this issue
is to avoid it entirely (which they often also suggest with government
schools, social security, and medicare). But even if this wasn't an issue
in which the law is particularly bad, inconsistent, and often just insane
(with teens caught sexting prosecuted for creating child porn
of...themselves), it strikes to the heart of Libertarianism. Consent is the
difference between theft and charity. Discussing age of consent highlights
consent in ways that are intensely emotional.

Imagine if we could get just Libertarians as infuriated about acts against
adults that are done against their consent as they are about discussions
about age of consent. Or if we could get the whole country fired up to that
level. Imagine if there were the same level of social pressure, for
example, against using government schools, for the simple reason that they
are nonconsensually funded. That would be a $500 billion a year tax
savings, neutralization of the state's propaganda arm, a massive
improvement in educational quality, more innovation, and more jobs as
businesses came to the now most educated country on earth. Imagine if real
considerations of actual consent were as emotionally charged as the
squeamishness of even discussing age of consent. Imagine if we could get
there not just logically, but emotionally.

We're there logically. Logically, we know that nonconsensual government
acts are wrong. But we've come to emotionally accept them. Let's work to
get ourselves and others to where our emotions match our logic.

Anyway, those who want to see my "official" position on this issue, please
take a look at my op-ed in 71republic:
https://71republic.com/2018/01/15/questioning-age-of-consent-laws-in-america-arvin-vohra/

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee







On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> IF my region wanted a suspension motion against Bill Weld, I would have
> moved it.  They did not.  I would have advised against it and advised other
> courses of action, but the members speak through the regional
> representatives.
>
> Absent and explicit right of recall, this is what they have, and I will
> not bind myself up with all kinds of wishful thinking to deny them that
> right.
>
> There was an LNC member considering a post-election censure motion against
> Weld.  It never came to fruition but I would have personally supported it
> while my region would be the final judge.  And I doubt they would.  The
> reason some in my region are supporting this is because ITS NOT THE FIRST
> TIME.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me
> three times and I am a damned fool.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Elizabeth,
>>
>> For the record, I agree with your personal view:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> With the 2018 convention only a few months away, those members who wish
>> to remove the vice chair from office will have the opportunity to do so
>> very soon. As expressed in the other recent message I just posted,
>> I do wish we had a recall provision enabling them to do so *now* – not
>> because I think Arvin should be removed from office, but because I think
>> that in a bottom-up party, members *should have that power over their
>> elected representatives*.
>>
>> But proposing such a change is a matter for the Bylaws Committee – or
>> failing that, something else that members could do from the floor at the
>> convention.
>>
>> In the meantime, something else came to mind for me in responding to
>> Arvin's letter to Chelsea Manning. When Bill Weld, as our vice-presidential
>> candidate, repeatedly made un-libertarian statements, such as calling for
>> the hiring of 1,000 more FBI agents, supporting the use of eminent domain,
>> and undermining the right to keep and bear arms, we on this LNC declined to
>> recall him.
>>
>> I believe this current controversy has resulted in more negative feedback
>> to this body than we heard in the case of Bill Weld primarily due to three
>> factors:
>>
>> 1) Timing – The LNC was formally asked to remove Weld immediately in the
>> wake of the convention where we had just nominated him and before many of
>> his objectionable remarks occurred
>> 2) Awareness – Most members did not hear about the call for removal
>> before it was voted on, and many members were probably unaware that the LNC
>> removing a member of the presidential ticket was even an option
>> 3) Where the controversy occurred – Arvin has been posting on Facebook,
>> where people who disagree with him can interact with him directly (and thus
>> become more agitated when he doesn't comply with their wishes!), and where
>> they can get immediate reinforcement from others who share their point of
>> view
>>
>> If the kind of repeated statements noted above by a Libertarian leader
>> with far more visibility than our vice chair did not rise to the level of
>> meriting him being removed from his leadership position, then I hardly
>> think a few intemperate or even reckless (but not unlibertarian) memes and
>> remarks put out by a member of this body warrant our removal. So I say
>> leave it to the members.
>>
>> Bottom line: *Directly going against the tenets of libertarianism is a
>> much more serious matter for a Libertarian Party leader than simply showing
>> poor judgement in one's messaging, and we should not suggest otherwise by
>> our actions.*
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>>
>>                                    ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>                         RealReform at earthlink.net
>>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>>
>>
>> "After citing a Facebook post made by Alicia Dearn about the reasons for
>> her actions concerning the Vice-Presidential nomination, Mr. Vohra moved to
>> rescind the nomination of William Weld as the Vice-Presidential nominee.
>> The vote on the motion was as follows:
>>
>> Voting “aye”: (none)
>>
>> Voting “no”: Bedwell, Bittner, Demarest, Goldstein, Harlos, Hayes,
>> Hewitt, Lark, Marsh, Mattson, McKnight, Redpath, Sarwark, Vohra
>>
>> Abstaining: Starchild
>>
>> The motion was not adopted with a vote total of 0-14."
>>
>>
>> (From the minutes of the May 30, 2016 LNC meeting, online at
>> https://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/20160530_LNC.pdf)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 3:48 PM, 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.or
>> g> 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.or
>> g> 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> wr
>> ote:
>> Could not agree more Larry
>>
>> Dustin Nanna
>> LNC Region 3 Alternate
>>
>> Vice Chair/Deputy Communications Director
>> Libertarian Party of Ohio
>>
>> (740) 816-9805
>>
>> 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
>> <blocked.gif>
>> Larry Sharpe
>> Larry Sharpe for Governor
>> 445 Park Ave, 9th Floor
>> New York, NY 10022
>> <blocked.gif> <blocked.gif> <blocked.gif> <blocked.gif>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Larry
>> <blocked.gif>
>> Larry Sharpe
>> Larry Sharpe for Governor
>> 445 Park Ave, 9th Floor
>> New York, NY 10022
>> <blocked.gif> <blocked.gif> <blocked.gif> <blocked.gif>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180116/57c4b2b8/attachment-0002.html>