[Lnc-business] FYI
erin.adams at lp.org
erin.adams at lp.org
Thu Jan 18 12:28:12 EST 2018
I agree with Mr. Hayes on this. I have been relatively silent throughout
this "ordeal" all the while sitting in consideration of all "sides". At
this point,enough is enough.
On 2018-01-18 11:20, Daniel Hayes wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list