[Lnc-business] FYI

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Thu Jan 18 16:57:24 EST 2018


I have to say - I'm a pretty to very solid no.  Most arguments (except
mine, of course) that I've seen advanced for voting no, have led me to
doubt myself.

Joshua A. Katz


On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

>    1. Is there a bylaws demanding empathy? Nope.
>    2. Is there some objective reason to believe that political
>    effectiveness requires empathy? Nope.
>    3. Has empathy held our movement back, in that it leads people to
>    refuse to speak out against things like government school use, and
>    focus on things that are nice, like issues no one on earth, including
>    most libertarians, know about or care about? Yes.
>    Here's some perspective: If we succeed in our stated platform goals, we
>    will be putting millions of government employees out of work. Sure, the
>    total number of jobs may increase, but those specific people will be
>    unemployed. They may face major life changes. Note that we'll also be
>    getting rid of welfare and government employment insurance. People
>    accustomed to upper middle class life will face major changes, often
>    downgrades.
>    Strength of will, willingness to accept the suffering of those who
>    collaborated with the state, is what is required to see that through.
>    Want to see the results of empathy? Take a look at our last
>    presidential candidate's response to a mother's incompetence, and her
>    son's bad decisionmaking. We need less empathy, not more, for this
>    movement to do what it needs to.
>    Respectfully,
>    Arvin Vohra
>    Vice Chair
>    Libertarian National Committee
>
>    On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>    <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
>         Correct.
>         There is an utter refusal to realize this isn’t about a perfect
>         philosophical point.
>         It is about basic judgment.  A shred of empathy and
>      consideration.
>         Your continued behavior is convincing people.
>         Enough already.
>         And Daniel is right.  You will just ratchet up.
>         I don’t consent.
>
>       On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:28 AM <[1][2]erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:
>         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][2][3]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][3][4]www.VoteVohra.com
>           >      [3][3][4][5]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>           >      [6](301) 320-3634
>           >    References
>           >      1.
>           [4][5][7]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
>           >      2. [5][6][8]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>           >      3. [6]mailto:[7][9]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>           >
>           >    _______________________________________________
>           >    Lnc-business mailing list
>           >    [7][8][10]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>           >    [8][9][11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
>      business
>           >
>           > References
>           >
>           >    1. mailto:[10][12]votevohra at gmail.com
>           >    2. [11][13]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>           >    3. mailto:[12][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>           >    4. [13][15]https://www.facebook.com/
>      VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
>           >    5. [14][16]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>           >    6. mailto:[15][17]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>           >    7. mailto:[16][18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>           >    8. [17][19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
>      mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>           >
>           > _______________________________________________
>           > Lnc-business mailing list
>           > [18][20]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>           > [19][21]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
>      mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>           _______________________________________________
>           Lnc-business mailing list
>           [20][22]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>           [21][23]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>      References
>         1. mailto:[24]erin.adams at lp.org
>         2. mailto:[25]votevohra at gmail.com
>         3. [26]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>         4. mailto:[27]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>         5. [28]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
>         6. [29]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>         7. mailto:[30]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>         8. mailto:[31]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>         9. [32]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>        10. mailto:[33]votevohra at gmail.com
>        11. [34]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>        12. mailto:[35]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>        13. [36]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
>        14. [37]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>        15. mailto:[38]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>        16. mailto:[39]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>        17. [40]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>        18. mailto:[41]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>        19. [42]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>        20. mailto:[43]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>        21. [44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>      _______________________________________________
>      Lnc-business mailing list
>      [45]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>      [46]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>    --
>    Arvin Vohra
>    [47]www.VoteVohra.com
>    [48]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>    (301) 320-3634
>
> References
>
>    1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>    2. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
>    3. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
>    4. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>    5. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>    6. tel:(301) 320-3634
>    7. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
>    8. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>    9. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   10. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   11. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   12. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
>   13. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   14. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   15. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
>   16. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   17. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   18. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   20. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   21. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   22. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   23. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   24. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
>   25. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
>   26. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   27. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   28. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
>   29. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   30. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   31. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   32. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   33. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
>   34. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   35. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   36. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
>   37. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   38. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   39. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   40. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   41. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   42. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   43. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   44. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   45. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>   46. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>   47. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   48. 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 --------------
   I have to say - I'm a pretty to very solid no.  Most arguments (except
   mine, of course) that I've seen advanced for voting no, have led me to
   doubt myself.

   Joshua A. Katz
   On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra at gmail.com>
   wrote:

        1. Is there a bylaws demanding empathy? Nope.
        2. Is there some objective reason to believe that political
        effectiveness requires empathy? Nope.
        3. Has empathy held our movement back, in that it leads people to
        refuse to speak out against things like government school use,
     and
        focus on things that are nice, like issues no one on earth,
     including
        most libertarians, know about or care about? Yes.
        Here's some perspective: If we succeed in our stated platform
     goals, we
        will be putting millions of government employees out of work.
     Sure, the
        total number of jobs may increase, but those specific people will
     be
        unemployed. They may face major life changes. Note that we'll
     also be
        getting rid of welfare and government employment insurance.
     People
        accustomed to upper middle class life will face major changes,
     often
        downgrades.
        Strength of will, willingness to accept the suffering of those
     who
        collaborated with the state, is what is required to see that
     through.
        Want to see the results of empathy? Take a look at our last
        presidential candidate's response to a mother's incompetence, and
     her
        son's bad decisionmaking. We need less empathy, not more, for
     this
        movement to do what it needs to.
        Respectfully,
        Arvin Vohra
        Vice Chair
        Libertarian National Committee
        On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
        <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
             Correct.
             There is an utter refusal to realize this isn’t about a
     perfect
             philosophical point.
             It is about basic judgment.  A shred of empathy and
          consideration.
             Your continued behavior is convincing people.
             Enough already.
             And Daniel is right.  You will just ratchet up.
             I don’t consent.

         On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:28 AM <[1][2][3]erin.adams at lp.org>
   wrote:
           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][2][3][4]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][3][4][5]www.VoteVohra.com
               >      [3][3][4][5][6]VoteVohra at gmail.com
               >      [6][7](301) 320-3634
               >    References
               >      1.
               [4][5][7][8]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=
     mentions
               >      2. [5][6][8][9]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
               >      3. [6]mailto:[7][9][10]VoteVohra at gmail.com
               >
               >    _______________________________________________
               >    Lnc-business mailing list
               >    [7][8][10][11]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
               >    [8][9][11][12]http://hq.lp.org/
     cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
          business
               >
               > References
               >
               >    1. mailto:[10][12][13]votevohra at gmail.com
               >    2. [11][13][14]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
               >    3. mailto:[12][14][15]VoteVohra at gmail.com
               >    4. [13][15][16]https://www.facebook.com/
          VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
               >    5. [14][16][17]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
               >    6. mailto:[15][17][18]VoteVohra at gmail.com
               >    7. mailto:[16][18][19]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
               >    8. [17][19][20]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
          mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
               >
               > _______________________________________________
               > Lnc-business mailing list
               > [18][20][21]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
               > [19][21][22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
          mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
               _______________________________________________
               Lnc-business mailing list
               [20][22][23]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
               [21][23][24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
     business
          References
             1. mailto:[24][25]erin.adams at lp.org
             2. mailto:[25][26]votevohra at gmail.com
             3. [26][27]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
             4. mailto:[27][28]VoteVohra at gmail.com
             5. [28][29]https://www.facebook.com/
     VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
             6. [29][30]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
             7. mailto:[30][31]VoteVohra at gmail.com
             8. mailto:[31][32]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
             9. [32][33]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
     mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
            10. mailto:[33][34]votevohra at gmail.com
            11. [34][35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
            12. mailto:[35][36]VoteVohra at gmail.com
            13. [36][37]https://www.facebook.com/
     VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
            14. [37][38]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
            15. mailto:[38][39]VoteVohra at gmail.com
            16. mailto:[39][40]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
            17. [40][41]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
     mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
            18. mailto:[41][42]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
            19. [42][43]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
     mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
            20. mailto:[43][44]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
            21. [44][45]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
     mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
          _______________________________________________
          Lnc-business mailing list
          [45][46]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
          [46][47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
        --
        Arvin Vohra
        [47][48]www.VoteVohra.com
        [48][49]VoteVohra at gmail.com
        [50](301) 320-3634
     References
        1. mailto:[51]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
        2. mailto:[52]erin.adams at lp.org
        3. mailto:[53]votevohra at gmail.com
        4. [54]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
        5. mailto:[55]VoteVohra at gmail.com
        6. tel:[56](301) 320-3634
        7. [57]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
        8. [58]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
        9. mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       10. mailto:[60]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       11. [61]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       12. mailto:[62]votevohra at gmail.com
       13. [63]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       14. mailto:[64]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       15. [65]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
       16. [66]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       17. mailto:[67]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       18. mailto:[68]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       19. [69]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       20. mailto:[70]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       21. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       22. mailto:[72]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       23. [73]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       24. mailto:[74]erin.adams at lp.org
       25. mailto:[75]votevohra at gmail.com
       26. [76]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       27. mailto:[77]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       28. [78]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
       29. [79]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       30. mailto:[80]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       31. mailto:[81]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       32. [82]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       33. mailto:[83]votevohra at gmail.com
       34. [84]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       35. mailto:[85]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       36. [86]https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
       37. [87]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       38. mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com
       39. mailto:[89]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       40. [90]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       41. mailto:[91]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       42. [92]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       43. mailto:[93]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       44. [94]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       45. mailto:[95]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
       46. [96]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
       47. [97]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
       48. mailto:[98]VoteVohra at gmail.com
     _______________________________________________
     Lnc-business mailing list
     [99]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
     [100]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

   1. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
   2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   3. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
   4. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
   5. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   6. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
   7. tel:(301) 320-3634
   8. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
   9. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  10. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  11. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  12. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
  13. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
  14. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  15. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  16. https://www.facebook.com/
  17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  18. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  19. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  20. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
  21. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
  23. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  25. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  26. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
  27. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  28. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  29. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
  30. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  31. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  32. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  33. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  34. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
  35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  36. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  37. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
  38. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  39. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  40. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  41. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  42. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  43. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  44. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  45. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  46. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  47. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  48. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  49. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  50. tel:(301) 320-3634
  51. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
  52. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  53. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
  54. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  55. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  56. tel:(301) 320-3634
  57. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
  58. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  59. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  60. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  61. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  62. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
  63. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  64. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  65. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
  66. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  67. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  68. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  69. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  70. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  71. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  72. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  73. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  74. mailto:erin.adams at lp.org
  75. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
  76. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  77. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  78. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
  79. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  80. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  81. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  82. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  83. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
  84. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  85. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  86. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
  87. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  88. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  89. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  90. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  91. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  92. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  93. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  94. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  95. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  96. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  97. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  98. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  99. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
 100. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list