[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Mon Jan 22 23:46:47 EST 2018
Caryn Ann,
It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to
consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are
aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the
influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or
otherwise diminished ability to reason. This is also true of minors, as
they're not able to discern the way adults can. This isn't just about
sex though, but medical procedures and other actions that may be
perpetrated upon a person. If a person isn't giving informed consent,
then the actions are aggression.
You wrote: "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 disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against
themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression".
They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is
against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. Which means
they don't care about theft. Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no
robbing, it's ok if others do. That's not being against theft. It's
being against a situation.
Libertarians aren't taking a stance against situations. We're taking a
stance against actions. So, yes, I as a libertarian, reject aggression
against ALL people. You don't need a philosophy to say "I don't want to
do this or have it happen to me". That's just a personal preference.
BEING a libertarian means you don't want OTHER people to commit
aggression too.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
On 2018-01-22 22:50, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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