[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Jan 22 20:36:32 EST 2018
It appears this email ballot has replaced the drive for an electronic
meeting. I fear that, if this motion fails, this means the ordeal will not
end, and that instead other email ballots will be forthcoming. In fact,
should it fail, I am inclined to cosponsor one.
I am not yet ready to vote. Instead, I write to argue some points in
favor, and some against. I look forward to seeing the debate develop
further, now that we have before us a precise action to debate, and intend
to base my vote on any further points raised. For now, I remain strongly
inclined to vote no.
First, I will address the wording briefly. I deny that Mr. Vohra has
presented libertarian ideas in some, but not all, of his posts. This
motion, though, clearly refers to his most recent remarks, and I deny that
they are grounded in libertarian ideas. As you know, I argue in favor of a
large libertarian tent. I think much belongs in the broad libertarian
tradition. That said, there is a line. In my opinion, while the
line-drawing exercise is a separate topic, just as day is not night despite
the existence of dusk, so too is there a rather large area of actions so
contrary to developmental and societal norms as to be far outside
libertarian inquiry. I defend line-drawing, but do not think that
criticisms of it fail to be libertarian. On the other hand, the denial
that there is a zone of unacceptability is, in my view, utterly morally
indefensible and shocking to the conscience.
Yet, even recently, some of Mr. Vohra's points have been well within our
libertarian tradition. The abuse of SORs is an affront to liberty, and we
must end it. Yet we can take action to end of restrict it, or we can
simply speak words which make it harder to address. I believe Mr. Vohra's
recent actions fall into the latter category, and to that extent, and only
that extent, I agree with the factual claims of the motion.
Yet, I ask, so what? Is my strong moral disgust with his words reason to
censure? The Vice Chair, it is true, sometimes speaks for the Party. Even
when he speaks individually, he is perceived as speaking for us. He has
made it clear, both through his actions and his words, that he intends to
drag this Party in the direction he wishes to go, one I find utterly
unlikely to succeed, morally inferior, and, in point of of fact, one in
which I simply will never go. If he succeeds in his project, it will be
without me. It is clear to me, though, from our members' reactions, that
he will not succeed. His remarks do make me less proud, perhaps even
ashamed, to present myself as a Libertarian, until I remember their low
reach among the general public. I am proud to stand for my notion of what
liberty means. I will not be forced to stand for a concept of liberty I
find detestable, unfree, and immoral. At the same time, I am concerned
about the consequences of this board choosing to monitor the off-work
statements of its members, and assign censure for them. Will we stick to
what I consider detestable - and, if we do, should that be enough to
reassure me that doing so is fine?
Many have written, asking us to take some form of action, and prophesying
grave consequences if we do not. Some of these, particularly the internal,
I do not doubt. Others, I doubt. Before turning to those doubts, though,
I will weigh in on an issue which has been much discussed already here. In
keeping with every corporate code, our Articles of Incorporation, and our
bylaws, I believe we are here to be leaders, not in a purely representative
capacity. During region formation, I pushed for, and received, a provision
making it easier than in past agreements to remove our rep and alternate.
I explained my reasons then: I intended to act as I saw best, for the
organization's health. Certainly, input from the region would form a part
of my judgment, but in the end, my judgment would be my own. Given that, I
wanted my region to have an easy solution if my actions did not comport
with its vision. In fact, I also made clear that it would take less than
the regional agreement said to remove me, that I would resign if I felt
there was widespread dissatisfaction with my votes. I am no longer a
regional alternate, though - and now feel the same way about the national
party, except that "widespread" is obviously a higher threshold. Others
feel differently, and that is fine with me, so long as we all keep in mind
that we, and no one else, are the fiduciaries, that we, and no one else,
will be held responsible for the Party's health.
Another reason for this model is precisely the current situation.
Reactions and overreactions to individual incidents call for sober
reflection. Our members depend on us to provide that. Yet another reason,
perhaps the most important to me personally, is that we serve more than our
members. A party is, in some sense, like a benefit corporation. It has
many stakeholders beyond its membership. Notably, it serves the voters.
67% of voters want a viable third party. It is a mistake to say they
should all vote Libertarian, of course, since many do not agree with our
views and values. However, the public desire for better candidates and a
better party does make it incumbent on us to try to provide one. We must
often look beyond our narrow interests and to the society in which we exist.
Which brings me to my next point. While Mr. Vohra's comments are, in my
view, harmful, they also bring to the surface other issues. I haven't
conducted the polling, but I have some predictions. If I polled random
voters, statistically none would know who our Vice Chair is - just as
statistically none would know the Vice Chairs of other parties. If I
polled voters of a particular party, the results would vary. Statistically
no Republicans would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically no
Democrats would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically, a rather
significant portion of our voters would know who our Vice Chair is. The
difference is that we are following a non-scalable model. We simply cannot
be successful at the polls and maintain that number, and we act far more
often in ways that maintain our closed-circle nature than that aim for
success at the polls. Ronna McDaniels says, in response to outrageous
tweets from a far more public figure than Mr. Vohra, that she has an
organization to run and doesn't have time to comment. We exchange hundreds
of emails when our Vice Chair says something outrageous.
We are not serving the voters. We are serving ourselves, and we are doing
it with money donated, in part, for us to serve the public. This is a
shame, and this is the source of our current woes. We speak about harming
our candidates, yet I firmly believe any candidate can, right now, go walk
doors and hear 0 questions about Mr. Vohra. I have no doubt, of course,
that some of our candidates can be harmed, if their opponents take the time
to research our party, manage to find Mr. Vohra's comments which are not on
any of our accounts (of course, if our members, and our detractors, choose
to comment about them on our accounts, this will be far easier), and then
to link our candidates to them. This is a serious concern for some
candidates, and if I heard from those candidates that a motion like this
would help their campaigns, that might make a difference to me. I have
heard nothing from those candidates. Our social media bubbles have
convinced us that the world knows and cares. It does not. The actual
concern is that candidates themselves drop out, activists themselves leave,
and so on, in response to these comments. These are serious concerns: we
need candidates, we need activists, we need donors. Yet they cannot be our
voting base, and we cannot serve only their interests. In fact, those
observations are related. Other parties do not hemorrhage candidates,
activists, and donors every time their Vice Chair says something, because
their candidates, activists, and donors are not running, being active, and
donating based on those sorts of internal concerns. Rather, their
candidates run for their electoral base. Their activists volunteer to
expand their electoral base. Their donors donate to make action happen, to
make laws change - because they have an electoral base to sweep them to
office, so long as work is done to fill the narrow gap remaining.
The motions about Mr. Vohra are about people within our party being upset.
We should react to such concerns, but they should not be the only concerns
to which we react.
Finally, we should respect the views of our delegates, who vote to form a
board expressing the aggregate of their individual preferences (within the
limits imposed by Arrow's Theorem). I disagree with those who say the
delegates did not know what they were getting. Perhaps as a factual matter
that is true, I can't say. But they could have, and should have, known
what they were getting, and I consider their vote to be expressing a
preference in that regard. It is not our role to reverse them or,
depending on how we see it, to save them. This Party is ultimately ruled
by the delegates, and we, should we choose to serve on this board, must
live within their decisions (as restricted by corporate codes and bylaws).
Censure is, in this regard, far different from removal, but arises from the
same place.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
> -Alicia
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
It appears this email ballot has replaced the drive for an electronic
meeting. I fear that, if this motion fails, this means the ordeal will
not end, and that instead other email ballots will be forthcoming. In
fact, should it fail, I am inclined to cosponsor one.
I am not yet ready to vote. Instead, I write to argue some points in
favor, and some against. I look forward to seeing the debate develop
further, now that we have before us a precise action to debate, and
intend to base my vote on any further points raised. For now, I remain
strongly inclined to vote no.
First, I will address the wording briefly. I deny that Mr. Vohra has
presented libertarian ideas in some, but not all, of his posts. This
motion, though, clearly refers to his most recent remarks, and I deny
that they are grounded in libertarian ideas. As you know, I argue in
favor of a large libertarian tent. I think much belongs in the broad
libertarian tradition. That said, there is a line. In my opinion,
while the line-drawing exercise is a separate topic, just as day is not
night despite the existence of dusk, so too is there a rather large
area of actions so contrary to developmental and societal norms as to
be far outside libertarian inquiry. I defend line-drawing, but do not
think that criticisms of it fail to be libertarian. On the other hand,
the denial that there is a zone of unacceptability is, in my view,
utterly morally indefensible and shocking to the conscience.
Yet, even recently, some of Mr. Vohra's points have been well within
our libertarian tradition. The abuse of SORs is an affront to liberty,
and we must end it. Yet we can take action to end of restrict it, or
we can simply speak words which make it harder to address. I believe
Mr. Vohra's recent actions fall into the latter category, and to that
extent, and only that extent, I agree with the factual claims of the
motion.
Yet, I ask, so what? Is my strong moral disgust with his words reason
to censure? The Vice Chair, it is true, sometimes speaks for the
Party. Even when he speaks individually, he is perceived as speaking
for us. He has made it clear, both through his actions and his words,
that he intends to drag this Party in the direction he wishes to go,
one I find utterly unlikely to succeed, morally inferior, and, in point
of of fact, one in which I simply will never go. If he succeeds in his
project, it will be without me. It is clear to me, though, from our
members' reactions, that he will not succeed. His remarks do make me
less proud, perhaps even ashamed, to present myself as a Libertarian,
until I remember their low reach among the general public. I am proud
to stand for my notion of what liberty means. I will not be forced to
stand for a concept of liberty I find detestable, unfree, and immoral.
At the same time, I am concerned about the consequences of this board
choosing to monitor the off-work statements of its members, and assign
censure for them. Will we stick to what I consider detestable - and,
if we do, should that be enough to reassure me that doing so is fine?
Many have written, asking us to take some form of action, and
prophesying grave consequences if we do not. Some of these,
particularly the internal, I do not doubt. Others, I doubt. Before
turning to those doubts, though, I will weigh in on an issue which has
been much discussed already here. In keeping with every corporate
code, our Articles of Incorporation, and our bylaws, I believe we are
here to be leaders, not in a purely representative capacity. During
region formation, I pushed for, and received, a provision making it
easier than in past agreements to remove our rep and alternate. I
explained my reasons then: I intended to act as I saw best, for the
organization's health. Certainly, input from the region would form a
part of my judgment, but in the end, my judgment would be my own.
Given that, I wanted my region to have an easy solution if my actions
did not comport with its vision. In fact, I also made clear that it
would take less than the regional agreement said to remove me, that I
would resign if I felt there was widespread dissatisfaction with my
votes. I am no longer a regional alternate, though - and now feel the
same way about the national party, except that "widespread" is
obviously a higher threshold. Others feel differently, and that is
fine with me, so long as we all keep in mind that we, and no one else,
are the fiduciaries, that we, and no one else, will be held responsible
for the Party's health.
Another reason for this model is precisely the current situation.
Reactions and overreactions to individual incidents call for sober
reflection. Our members depend on us to provide that. Yet another
reason, perhaps the most important to me personally, is that we serve
more than our members. A party is, in some sense, like a benefit
corporation. It has many stakeholders beyond its membership. Notably,
it serves the voters. 67% of voters want a viable third party. It is
a mistake to say they should all vote Libertarian, of course, since
many do not agree with our views and values. However, the public
desire for better candidates and a better party does make it incumbent
on us to try to provide one. We must often look beyond our narrow
interests and to the society in which we exist.
Which brings me to my next point. While Mr. Vohra's comments are, in
my view, harmful, they also bring to the surface other issues. I
haven't conducted the polling, but I have some predictions. If I
polled random voters, statistically none would know who our Vice Chair
is - just as statistically none would know the Vice Chairs of other
parties. If I polled voters of a particular party, the results would
vary. Statistically no Republicans would know who their Vice Chair
is. Statistically no Democrats would know who their Vice Chair is.
Statistically, a rather significant portion of our voters would know
who our Vice Chair is. The difference is that we are following a
non-scalable model. We simply cannot be successful at the polls and
maintain that number, and we act far more often in ways that maintain
our closed-circle nature than that aim for success at the polls. Ronna
McDaniels says, in response to outrageous tweets from a far more public
figure than Mr. Vohra, that she has an organization to run and doesn't
have time to comment. We exchange hundreds of emails when our Vice
Chair says something outrageous.
We are not serving the voters. We are serving ourselves, and we are
doing it with money donated, in part, for us to serve the public. This
is a shame, and this is the source of our current woes. We speak about
harming our candidates, yet I firmly believe any candidate can, right
now, go walk doors and hear 0 questions about Mr. Vohra. I have no
doubt, of course, that some of our candidates can be harmed, if their
opponents take the time to research our party, manage to find Mr.
Vohra's comments which are not on any of our accounts (of course, if
our members, and our detractors, choose to comment about them on our
accounts, this will be far easier), and then to link our candidates to
them. This is a serious concern for some candidates, and if I heard
from those candidates that a motion like this would help their
campaigns, that might make a difference to me. I have heard nothing
from those candidates. Our social media bubbles have convinced us that
the world knows and cares. It does not. The actual concern is that
candidates themselves drop out, activists themselves leave, and so on,
in response to these comments. These are serious concerns: we need
candidates, we need activists, we need donors. Yet they cannot be our
voting base, and we cannot serve only their interests. In fact, those
observations are related. Other parties do not hemorrhage candidates,
activists, and donors every time their Vice Chair says something,
because their candidates, activists, and donors are not running, being
active, and donating based on those sorts of internal concerns.
Rather, their candidates run for their electoral base. Their activists
volunteer to expand their electoral base. Their donors donate to make
action happen, to make laws change - because they have an electoral
base to sweep them to office, so long as work is done to fill the
narrow gap remaining.
The motions about Mr. Vohra are about people within our party being
upset. We should react to such concerns, but they should not be the
only concerns to which we react.
Finally, we should respect the views of our delegates, who vote to form
a board expressing the aggregate of their individual preferences
(within the limits imposed by Arrow's Theorem). I disagree with those
who say the delegates did not know what they were getting. Perhaps as
a factual matter that is true, I can't say. But they could have, and
should have, known what they were getting, and I consider their vote to
be expressing a preference in that regard. It is not our role to
reverse them or, depending on how we see it, to save them. This Party
is ultimately ruled by the delegates, and we, should we choose to serve
on this board, must live within their decisions (as restricted by
corporate codes and bylaws). Censure is, in this regard, far different
from removal, but arises from the same place.
Virus-free. [1]www.avast.com
Joshua A. Katz
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
<[2]agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated
public
comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
inflammatory and
sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders
and
candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those
ideas.
-Alicia
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[3]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
Visible links
1. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
2. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
3. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
Hidden links:
6. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
7. file://localhost/tmp/tmpoGaAKX.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list