[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Mon Jan 22 22:50:13 EST 2018


Brutalism is a form of libertarianism.  I reject it, but there is nothing
inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for
others.  It requires non-aggression.  But when it comes to a political
party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable,
and I think, necessary.  But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying
all one cares about is force against them.  There is no positive obligation
to care about others.  I think there is a moral one and political
libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a
way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough
luck for you.  I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original
motion has a great deal right about it.  Freedom of association, for
instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are
technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most
people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put
forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas.  Where Arvin went off into
non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues
with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he
could say that he felt that was implied.  It certainly wasn't enough for me
nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst
thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators,
and that is something we cannot have.  But on the sheer face of it, he
could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas.  Tucker didn't
deny brutalism was libertarian.  He implied it was emotionally stunted and
yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally
lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the
most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the
motion.  He made what could be beautiful into something ugly.  And freedom
entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness.  We as a party
should be promoting the beautiful.

And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist
thing as you correctly note.  One really obvious reason is right here.
Me.  Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly
happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof.  Anarchism =/=
brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves.  I hope to be
made much more after the Tucker model.

I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1
states support but I am not voting on it at this time.

As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty.  Knowing then what I know
now, yes I would have suggested.  But one cannot backwards project, and I
think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for
peace and closure but to ratchet up.  There is very little to be done about
that without knowing it ahead of time.  I think the statement resolution
made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now.

I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to
our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these
things.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:

> I vote no.
> ----------------
>
> I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt.
> This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin
> was indeed espousing libertarian ideas.
> My objections are twofold:
>
> 1)  Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is
> caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from
> coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two
> different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's
> principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is
> primarily concerned with the impact it has on him.  If you are more
> concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children,
> then your concern isn't about freedom.  It's about yourself.
>
> Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of
> ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian
> anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist
> stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism
> to become an abdication of responsibility.
>
> 2)  The censure is too little too late.  It's a band-aid for an gaping
> wound.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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/
>
>
> On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
-------------- next part --------------
   Brutalism is a form of libertarianism.  I reject it, but there is
   nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires
   care for others.  It requires non-aggression.  But when it comes to a
   political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy)
   is inevitable, and I think, necessary.  But there is nothing
   unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them.
   There is no positive obligation to care about others.  I think there is
   a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw
   philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force,
   not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you.  I think you have
   posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal
   right about it.  Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the
   possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within
   libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor
   should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally
   equal to cosmopolitan ideas.  Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian
   things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and
   consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say
   that he felt that was implied.  It certainly wasn't enough for me nor
   for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst
   thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for
   predators, and that is something we cannot have.  But on the sheer face
   of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas.
   Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian.  He implied it was
   emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be
   selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all
   arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it
   was as described in the motion.  He made what could be beautiful into
   something ugly.  And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and
   that of ugliness.  We as a party should be promoting the beautiful.
   And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a
   minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note.  One really obvious
   reason is right here.  Me.  Unless anyone wants to deny I am an
   anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the
   immediate disproof.  Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP
   example) also proves.  I hope to be made much more after the Tucker
   model.
   I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1
   states support but I am not voting on it at this time.
   As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty.  Knowing then what I
   know now, yes I would have suggested.  But one cannot backwards
   project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but
   Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up.  There is
   very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time.  I
   think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but
   it is beyond that now.
   I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover
   to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on
   these things.

   On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn
   <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:

     I vote no.
     ----------------
     I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff
     Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I
     disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas.
     My objections are twofold:
     1)  Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It
     is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be
     free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from
     coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is
     libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the
     freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has
     on him.  If you are more concerned with money being taken from you
     than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about
     freedom.  It's about yourself.
     Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of
     ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian
     anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an
     anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization
     of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility.
     2)  The censure is too little too late.  It's a band-aid for an
     gaping wound.
     ---
     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
     [2]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
     On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson 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

   _______________________________________________
   Lnc-business mailing list
   [5]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   [6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

   1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
   2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
   3. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
   5. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list