[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Arvin Vohra votevohra at gmail.com
Wed Jan 17 11:56:11 EST 2018 

Dear Ms. Harlos,

There is a range of views on statutory rape. Your view, which considers it
essentially identical to first degree rape, is not one I agree with, or one
that the law agrees with, or one that historical precedent agrees with. My
view, that it is a matter for family and not the state, is also not one
that the law agrees with. So let's settle this like good anarchists and use
the state as a benchmark.

I'll use your state as a benchmark (assuming you still live in Colorado),
but apply the view that taxation is theft.

To consider the currrent item under discussion, I'll use your state as a
benchmark. 12 years of public school involves taking $120,000 from others,
often against their direct wishes, over their objections, without their
consent. Morally,  that's the equivalent of theft of that amount, which in
Colorado carries jail of up to 12 years and a $750,000 fine.

In colorado, an adult who has sex with a 15 year old faces no penalty.

An adult who has sex with a 14 year old to whom her or she is marrried
faces no penalty.

An adult who has non-marital sex with a 14 year old faces 1-12 years in
prison, and a $2000 to $500,000 fine.

An adult who uses force, whether married or otherwise, faces first degree
(not statutory) rape charges.

-Arvin

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> So...... to hell with the 14 year old.  It’s all about me and that’s how I
> should present it to the world.
>
> Is it better she just voluntarily committ suicide?  That’s real cheap.
>
> I am as opposed to theft as you are.  It doesn’t mean that I view
> everything as a math equation and think it just fine to say it’s better
> something horrible happens to someone else.
>
> How about humans are not balance sheets?  That both SUCK and don’t need to
> be quantified.
>
> How many rapes equal one theft?  How about theft of a penny? What happened
> to proportionality?  Or being opposed to the transfer of misery.  WTAF.
>
> See how ruthless that is?
>
> THAT IS NOT OUR MESSAGE.  That might be a ruthless objectivism but the LP
> split from that in its first years.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:43 PM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all -
>>
>> Just to make sure people know my view on the issue that Caryn Ann brought
>> up: I do consider forcing others to pay for your kids to be a nonconsensual
>> act, completely morally unjustifiable.
>>
>> To put it in degree perspective:
>>
>> 1. It is done to a stranger.
>> 2. There is no hint of consent.
>> 3. There is often direct, vocal opposition.
>> 4. The act is backed up with very real threats of force, including the
>> threat of being locked in a rape cage by the state if you don't comply.
>> Said rape cages are known for first degree, not statutory, rape.
>>
>> -Arvin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm I manage to condemn the state every day without making people into
>>> mere digits on an tax spending worksheet.
>>>
>>> The Cold Equations is a fantastic short story.  But terrible politics,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh the courage to say a 14 year old girl is better to be impregnated by
>>>> potential perv with a good job than a fellow young innocent fumbling his
>>>> way through a foolish act.
>>>>
>>>> Much brave.  Many whistle.  Wow.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM David Demarest <david.demerest at lp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, let's see. Arvin has committed no crime, no violation of the SoP
>>>>> or bylaws and has not deserted to the enemy. His is being tried in public
>>>>> by some who think he has violated their personal moral code but primarily
>>>>> by those who are self-proclaimed political-correctness hypocrites who think
>>>>> it perfectly okay to misrepresent their personal dictates of conscience to
>>>>> achieve political goals, namely to avoid losing votes, a bad case of
>>>>> top-down get-elected-itis.
>>>>>
>>>>> This reminds me of McCarthyism but in reverse, persecution for being
>>>>> too Libertarian and risking scaring away voters, most of who could care
>>>>> less about Arvin. If you think carefully about it, Arvin is a whistle
>>>>> blower on those who are evading their responsibility to properly handle
>>>>> government-imposed moral dilemmas. Yes, indeedy, Arvin has made us very
>>>>> uncomfortable, and rightly so, for which we are persecuting him. Does the
>>>>> LNC want to achieve a reputation of punishing outspoken whistle blowers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Arvin was elected by convention delegates, not by the LNC. This motion
>>>>> usurps the power of the delegates, all in the name of bowing to LNC
>>>>> internal fearmongering, at best. We need to demonstrate our courage and do
>>>>> things the right way, not the lynch-mob way.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018 5:01 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And say we suspend/remove him.  He will still be the Libertarian
>>>>> Senate Candidate for Maryland.  To my understanding that CANT be rescinded.
>>>>> That ship has sailed as the paperwork is filed with the Maryland Secretary
>>>>> of State.
>>>>>    Arvin’s not going to magically shut up if he gets suspended from
>>>>> the LNC.  He likely will see a greater need to “teach everyone what
>>>>> Libertarianism really is”.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What solutions?  A resolution that satisfied no one and only let it
>>>>> happen again?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:42 PM David Demarest <david.demerest at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tough decision and it will only get tougher if it goes to a vote that
>>>>> will result in perhaps irreparable repercussions to all on both sides of
>>>>> the issue. Not much happened last year when it died on the vine with no
>>>>> co-sponsors and gave everyone a chance to step back from the nuclear option
>>>>> abyss and saner minds space to work on solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018 4:28 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m saying it’s interesting when this is brought up as a radical issue
>>>>> (not in this Body) yet the fact that the LNC member who might be one of the
>>>>> most visible radicals who in this case is the primary antagonist is missing
>>>>> from the narrative.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it’s not as simple as that.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don’t need enemies.  We do it to ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM Joshua Katz <
>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like you're saying one example of a Radical is being pointed
>>>>> to, to tar the whole.  That sounds like what many of us are saying can
>>>>> happen to the Party.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, that aside, I wasn't advocating for yes or no.  I was advocating
>>>>> for a decision.  Issues become more divisive if they continually come back
>>>>> up than if they are resolved, one way or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is how it starts.  Bullshit hit piece articles by those
>>>>> angling for political advantage.   It starts with Arvin, but it doesn’t
>>>>> stop there. THAT is why I will vote no.  The purge starts with Arvin but it
>>>>> won’t stop there.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my conversation with Dr Howard Wetsman yesterday we were taking
>>>>> about revolutionary movements of the past having digressed from our
>>>>> original conversation and he said this:
>>>>>
>>>>> “ Authoritarian revolutionary parties have a history of creating
>>>>> offenses with which to convict individuals in the party and remove them
>>>>> from a position of influence.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But we aren’t authoritarians..we don’t spend hours fighting over rules
>>>>> and arguing over the way we tell people how to be a Libertarian every two
>>>>> years.. errr..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This purge it starts with Arvin, then they will go after Nick,
>>>>> including in his campaign for mayor(can’t have a guy that might succeed),
>>>>> then they will come for me because I won’t stand for people LYING about
>>>>> what Arvin actually said and I don’t want to feed the guillotine because
>>>>> it’s thirst is never sated once it gets a taste.  Then it will be for
>>>>> radicals other than Arvin, and others that don’t agree with the new
>>>>> saviors/overlords of the Party.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at some of the opportunistic behavior.  Trent Somes and the
>>>>> Libertarian Youth Caucus advocate for removal of what they see as laws that
>>>>> discriminate against teens based on age.  Arvin calls for that removal and
>>>>> they condemned him and mischaracterize what he said. Trent’s own Uncle has
>>>>> pointed out this hypocrisy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there are NUMEROUS would be candidates and caucuses, some of who
>>>>> agree with Arvin’s basic positions and are also mischaracterizing what he
>>>>> actually said and trying to use it for political advantage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who will be the Libertarian Party’s Mao, Lenin, Castro or Danton(and
>>>>> those that took his head)? Who will start the purge?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Arvin started it.  Let me make that clear.  But there is an article
>>>>> that came out today trying to paint it as a particularly divisive issue of
>>>>> one faction.  And fails to mention that the main vocal critic of Arvin is
>>>>> from that faction (yours truly).  Any reporting on LNC action that fails to
>>>>> mention the quite obvious issue that it is the fellow anarchist and radical
>>>>> who has been incessantly calling him to task is pretty transparently having
>>>>> the opposite agenda, with the expected response of THROW OUT THE ANARCHISTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Bueno.
>>>>>
>>>>> All.of.this.needs.to.STOP.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This specifies the chair, and RONR provides that no member may assist
>>>>> the chair in parliamentary matters without the chair's request, so I will
>>>>> not address the parliamentary question.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I wanted to second this:
>>>>>
>>>>> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then
>>>>> again, Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit
>>>>> for tat, I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout
>>>>> is fair play.  *We need to stop that culture. * Now.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is precisely why I am cosponsoring and/or joining a call for a
>>>>> meeting.  Issues left unresolved but continually brought back up have this
>>>>> tendency to be divisive.  I favor coming a resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have several concerns here.
>>>>>
>>>>> And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this
>>>>> incident who - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally
>>>>> - a radical anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making
>>>>> four, but only have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region.
>>>>> I don't need a 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable
>>>>> with it now that two of my states are in favour of removal.  CO and WA may
>>>>> have a decision soon.  And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear
>>>>> to co-sponsor as long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing.
>>>>> That protects minority voices.
>>>>>
>>>>> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then
>>>>> again, Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit
>>>>> for tat, I can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout
>>>>> is fair play.  *We need to stop that culture.  Now.*
>>>>>
>>>>> But to my concerns.  I have been reading more in RONR and I think the
>>>>> motion is improper for the reasons I stated before.  It must state a
>>>>> cause.  Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it
>>>>> MUST (if it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the
>>>>> form of a trial - in executive session.  I don't like secret sessions but
>>>>> that is my reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended -
>>>>> though it seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion as
>>>>> being out of order without a stated cause.  That being said, I do have some
>>>>> proposed cause language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Members reading this.  Do not allow anyone to put you into a mentality
>>>>> of purging anyone.  Moderate, Radical, or otherwise.  Our binding factor is
>>>>> the Statement of Principles.  Inciting a hate movement against Johnson
>>>>> supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong.  The same is true
>>>>> for Party radicals and anarchists.  This is insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I spoke with the Chair of HI.  She supports removal.  Region 1: Utah
>>>>> (no); Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).
>>>>>
>>>>> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal opinion.
>>>>> I don't have that much power.  But this is where the issue of us being
>>>>> elected for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs want my
>>>>> advice.  They can take it or not, but they want it.  And I advise them on
>>>>> how to protect their own state if the LNC does nothing.  That is my job.
>>>>>
>>>>> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:
>>>>>
>>>>> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin Vohra
>>>>> should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the Libertarian
>>>>> Party.  On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments,
>>>>> however the topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in
>>>>> discredit to the LP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This cannot continue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers.  One role
>>>>> cannot exist at the expense of the other.  The LP is not a hermetic
>>>>> association for the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a
>>>>> political organization with the intent to guide and influence our
>>>>> government and citizenry.  All political correctness aside, earning the
>>>>> credibility to do this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our
>>>>> audience, the American people.  Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot
>>>>> understand this fundamental constraint.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI - LPCO has an open email list.  Its time we heard the voices of
>>>>> our members - anyone can follow their discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were persuasive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting.  If this motion got four
>>>>> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have full word from
>>>>> region 1 in ten days.  Not gonna happen.  So even though I suspect they
>>>>> will not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1 support.  A
>>>>> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region know they can
>>>>> attend for public comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board meeting).  I
>>>>> have three definite responses.  AZ asked to be recused.  AK is in favour of
>>>>> suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me here).  UT
>>>>> opposes.  The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not weighed
>>>>> in (FYI I recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz <
>>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting.  I also said in
>>>>> that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it needs a
>>>>> full hearing.  Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos and from Mr.
>>>>> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into question.  I
>>>>> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced that
>>>>> consideration is due.  I believe motions get clearer and better
>>>>> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a difference,
>>>>> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a precise
>>>>> motion.  (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this motion would be
>>>>> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this is
>>>>> necessary.)  Therefore, I will cosponsor.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I ask
>>>>> the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.  According to
>>>>> RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate (but may
>>>>> vote against it), but the seconder may speak against it in debate.  Our
>>>>> email ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the motion, the
>>>>> original maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors."  That notwithstanding,
>>>>> it is my understanding that a cosponsor is in the position of a seconder
>>>>> and may speak in debate against the motion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn <
>>>>> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
>>>>>
>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now backing this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the region in accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin.  That percent was reached last night.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if convenient".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and spending their hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is their voice that I represent.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20180117/8f3b18d1/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list