[Lnc-business] FYI
Daniel Hayes
daniel.hayes at lp.org
Thu Jan 18 12:20:05 EST 2018
Arvin,
I have been a staunch “NO” on your removal. It was not because I think there should be no government involvement in age of consent because I do think there needs to be some line in the sand on that issue. My strong reluctance has been because it potentially chills the speech of this board’s members which should be somewhat bold advocating for Liberty. It’s never a good outcome when members of a board vote to remove their peers. We don’t want our governance of the organization between conventions to be a circular firing squad. We also don’t want to encourage overall members to know that if they exaggerate and mischaracterize what someone they don’t agree with says and then jump up and down enough, they can have them removed. Then there is the fact that I personally like you.
All of that said, you just don’t recognize that we are a POLITICAL PARTY. This is not about finding the exact right philosophical argument. We are also dealing with people’s emotions here. You are still arguing the academic point. This is not about that. It’s ultimately about your lack of empathy to others on this board, others running for office, and others in the Party and others that have been victims of child sexual abuse. You say families and culture should stop it. The sad reality is it is usually a family member that is the abuser or a trusted friend of the family or a trusted cultural member of their community like a church leader. That is why we need SOME law that makes a line in the sand. Then we need to be more diligent as a society and make greater use of jury nullification when the law is abused as well as hold legislators to task. That said this is a sensitive issue and you just don’t show any sensitivity.
It is your latest attempt to sway minds on the LNC that has swayed mine with this sentence.
“But as I consider the actions of the aforementioned great minds, I believe that I have been, perhaps, too timid.”
This says to me that over the next 5 month you are only going to ratchet up your rhetoric. It is with great sadness that I must consider myself as a “YES” on any vote for your removal.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 18, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A bit more information for consideration before the upcoming electronic
> meeting. This is taken from my facebook page:
>
> Over the last few days, I've heard from many people about different
> Libertarian theories of age of consent, both online and offline. I have
> become convinced that a law that I previously considered sort of silly
> is far more deeply flawed than I realized.
>
> The issue with current laws is that it tries to set the age of consent
> as "the age past which sexual manipulation is impossible, or extremely
> unlikely." This is a fools errand. There is no such age.
>
> Biologically, the prefrontal cortex continues developing until around
> age 25. However, the prefrontal cortex of some 25 year olds will
> obviously be inferior to that of other 16 year olds.
>
> But the physical development of the prefrontal cortex doesn't tell the
> whole story. 40 year olds, because of their life experience, may have
> more impulse control than 25 year olds, as well as more ability to
> manipulate. Some people are, through genetics or practice, easily able
> to manipulate people their own age or older.
>
> And some people don't. Even the hardcore statists haven't gone so far
> as to argue that 100% of sex between teenagers and adults is
> problematic, that at no point in history was that beneficial. Some have
> even discussed the lasting marriages of their own grandparents (and
> occasionally parents).
>
> Many supposed anarchists have gone running to statism, like the "brave"
> kids who run and hide behind mommy at the first sign of, well,
> anything.
>
> There are other models worth considering. The first is the German
> model. Yes, I know it's still statism, but it can inform anarchist and
> minarchist thought. In Germany, the age of consent is set low, at 14.
> However, if there is an age gap, and the younger person feels as if he
> or she has been exploited, manipulated, etc., that person can press
> charges. This enables positive romance, and puts a bar on manipulation.
> It puts the burden of responsibility on the older person, which is
> where it should be. American law, on the other hand, basically say to a
> younger person who feels exploited, but was of age, "Well you said yes,
> sucks to be you LOL!!!"
>
> Murray Rothbard discussed "homesteading", which has some application.
> Once a person at any age has set himself up independent of his parents,
> has a job/business, residence, etc., he or she is free to make his own
> decisions about everything.
>
> Some objectivists have similarly argued that when a person can take on
> the responsibilities of adulthood, they have the right to make their
> own decisions. I like that idea. I would extend it by saying that those
> who cannot take on those responsibilities don't have those rights.
> Those who have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more they
> cannot afford, are violating that. I don't think the state should be
> involved. I also don't think the state should subsidize that behavior
> through welfare, as it has been doing for decades (and yes, welfare
> does include government schools).
>
> I've also learned about the history of those who have spoke out against
> these laws, particularly in Europe. I was surprised to see people like
> legendary feminist Simone de Beauvoir and philosopher Jean Paul Sartre
> sign a petition demanding the release of three men who had been jailed
> for violating age of consent laws...way back in the ancient times of
> 1977. These were intellectual giants with big ideas, people of incisive
> thought and massive reach. Some may have been statists too, but I
> frankly am more in awe of statists with big minds and bid ideas than
> with small minded libertarians with minor-league ideas. Were those
> giants loved and hated? Sure. Were they influential? I'd say so.
>
> Let's not let the fact that we are a smaller movement make us small
> minded. Let's not be afraid to challenge the big, sacred ideas. Not
> just point out areas where they give absurd results, but challenge
> their very fundamental underpinnings.
>
> In a few days, there will be a meeting to consider removing me from the
> LNC for bringing this issue up not nicely enough. But as I consider the
> actions of the aforementioned great minds, I believe that I have been,
> perhaps, too timid.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> [1]Arvin Vohra
> --
> Arvin Vohra
> [2]www.VoteVohra.com
> [3]VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
> References
>
> 1. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
> 2. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
> 3. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
-------------- next part --------------
Arvin,
I have been a staunch “NO” on your removal. It was not because I think
there should be no government involvement in age of consent because I
do think there needs to be some line in the sand on that issue. My
strong reluctance has been because it potentially chills the speech of
this board’s members which should be somewhat bold advocating for
Liberty. It’s never a good outcome when members of a board vote to
remove their peers. We don’t want our governance of the organization
between conventions to be a circular firing squad. We also don’t want
to encourage overall members to know that if they exaggerate and
mischaracterize what someone they don’t agree with says and then jump
up and down enough, they can have them removed. Then there is the fact
that I personally like you.
All of that said, you just don’t recognize that we are a POLITICAL
PARTY. This is not about finding the exact right philosophical
argument. We are also dealing with people’s emotions here. You are
still arguing the academic point. This is not about that. It’s
ultimately about your lack of empathy to others on this board, others
running for office, and others in the Party and others that have been
victims of child sexual abuse. You say families and culture should
stop it. The sad reality is it is usually a family member that is the
abuser or a trusted friend of the family or a trusted cultural member
of their community like a church leader. That is why we need SOME law
that makes a line in the sand. Then we need to be more diligent as a
society and make greater use of jury nullification when the law is
abused as well as hold legislators to task. That said this is a
sensitive issue and you just don’t show any sensitivity.
It is your latest attempt to sway minds on the LNC that has swayed mine
with this sentence.
“But as I consider the actions of the aforementioned great minds, I
believe that I have been, perhaps, too timid.”
This says to me that over the next 5 month you are only going to
ratchet up your rhetoric. It is with great sadness that I must
consider myself as a “YES” on any vote for your removal.
Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra at gmail.com>
wrote:
A bit more information for consideration before the upcoming
electronic
meeting. This is taken from my facebook page:
Over the last few days, I've heard from many people about different
Libertarian theories of age of consent, both online and offline. I
have
become convinced that a law that I previously considered sort of
silly
is far more deeply flawed than I realized.
The issue with current laws is that it tries to set the age of
consent
as "the age past which sexual manipulation is impossible, or
extremely
unlikely." This is a fools errand. There is no such age.
Biologically, the prefrontal cortex continues developing until around
age 25. However, the prefrontal cortex of some 25 year olds will
obviously be inferior to that of other 16 year olds.
But the physical development of the prefrontal cortex doesn't tell
the
whole story. 40 year olds, because of their life experience, may have
more impulse control than 25 year olds, as well as more ability to
manipulate. Some people are, through genetics or practice, easily
able
to manipulate people their own age or older.
And some people don't. Even the hardcore statists haven't gone so far
as to argue that 100% of sex between teenagers and adults is
problematic, that at no point in history was that beneficial. Some
have
even discussed the lasting marriages of their own grandparents (and
occasionally parents).
Many supposed anarchists have gone running to statism, like the
"brave"
kids who run and hide behind mommy at the first sign of, well,
anything.
There are other models worth considering. The first is the German
model. Yes, I know it's still statism, but it can inform anarchist
and
minarchist thought. In Germany, the age of consent is set low, at 14.
However, if there is an age gap, and the younger person feels as if
he
or she has been exploited, manipulated, etc., that person can press
charges. This enables positive romance, and puts a bar on
manipulation.
It puts the burden of responsibility on the older person, which is
where it should be. American law, on the other hand, basically say to
a
younger person who feels exploited, but was of age, "Well you said
yes,
sucks to be you LOL!!!"
Murray Rothbard discussed "homesteading", which has some application.
Once a person at any age has set himself up independent of his
parents,
has a job/business, residence, etc., he or she is free to make his
own
decisions about everything.
Some objectivists have similarly argued that when a person can take
on
the responsibilities of adulthood, they have the right to make their
own decisions. I like that idea. I would extend it by saying that
those
who cannot take on those responsibilities don't have those rights.
Those who have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more they
cannot afford, are violating that. I don't think the state should be
involved. I also don't think the state should subsidize that behavior
through welfare, as it has been doing for decades (and yes, welfare
does include government schools).
I've also learned about the history of those who have spoke out
against
these laws, particularly in Europe. I was surprised to see people
like
legendary feminist Simone de Beauvoir and philosopher Jean Paul
Sartre
sign a petition demanding the release of three men who had been
jailed
for violating age of consent laws...way back in the ancient times of
1977. These were intellectual giants with big ideas, people of
incisive
thought and massive reach. Some may have been statists too, but I
frankly am more in awe of statists with big minds and bid ideas than
with small minded libertarians with minor-league ideas. Were those
giants loved and hated? Sure. Were they influential? I'd say so.
Let's not let the fact that we are a smaller movement make us small
minded. Let's not be afraid to challenge the big, sacred ideas. Not
just point out areas where they give absurd results, but challenge
their very fundamental underpinnings.
In a few days, there will be a meeting to consider removing me from
the
LNC for bringing this issue up not nicely enough. But as I consider
the
actions of the aforementioned great minds, I believe that I have
been,
perhaps, too timid.
Respectfully,
[1]Arvin Vohra
--
Arvin Vohra
[2][2]www.VoteVohra.com
[3][3]VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
References
1. [4]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
2. [5]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
3. [6]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[7]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[8]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
2. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
3. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
4. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
5. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
6. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
7. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
8. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list