[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra
Caryn Ann Harlos
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Jan 23 00:07:19 EST 2018
===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. ===
Of course.
== This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way
adults can. ===
The word "minor" is a legal term that can change tomorrow. 18 is not a
magical age in fact the brain is still developing way beyond that. A
twenty year old cannot consent the way a thirty year old can either, but
the question isn't equal capacity it is sufficient capacity. And at what
age that happens is NOT a determined set in stone libertarian principle.
Age of consent has been debated since the beginning of the Party and we
cannot simply by fiat declared it settled. It isn't. So when is
sufficient capacity? It differs. My views are quite conservative and
while I would not punish two young people who are both not sufficiently
capable, I do think age disparaties are a huge issue but my view is not THE
Libertarian view. Nor is it timeless. I think our affluent culture which
allows us to extend adolescent and childhood plays a huge factor and that
we simply don't raise our children to be sufficiently capable early. In
other times they did. It was a necessity. Our being to not do so is a
luxury but at what point does that conflict with biological urges? That is
a question. While I think Arvin was nowhere near nuanced or clear on this,
neither was it nuanced or clear that he was promoting anything contrary.
He may disagree on a medical/scientific issue of when sufficient capability
is reached but a disagreement on FACT doesn't make it a disagreement on a
principle. I think he agrees that incapable people cannot give consent.
THAT is the Libertarian principles, not some arbitrary labeling of
"minor." I think the law has it about right most of the time, but that is
not anything inherent in the law, it is the law recognizes reality. But I
don't believe in set age of consent laws. I believe in a shifting
presumption of incapability.
===
I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves,
and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". ===
Sure they are. If they are not the ones committing the aggression there is
no obligation to care about it. That makes them a bad person but it
doesn't make them not a libertarian. Even our own platform recognizes this
when it says that an inherent right does not create any obligation upon
other people to fulfill that right, much less care if anyone does. A bad
person =/= not libertarian.
==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. ===
As an individualist philosophy not committing theft oneself is the bare
requirement without which one is not libertarian. More is not required.
Though more is more human.
==Which means they don't care about theft. ===
No it doesn't. It means they are emotionally stunted but there are no
unassumed positive obligations in libertarianism.
==Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others
do. ===
You are conflating not caring with saying it is okay. Saying it is okay is
advocating force. Not caring is passive. There is a difference. And
arguing Arvin crossed that line in his horrid welfare example but I think
we don't jump to the absolute worst conclusion but likely somewhere in the
middle. An unempathetic and recklessly poor messaging.
I think being a political libertarian requires caring. Active caring.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
-------------- next part --------------
===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. ===
Of course.
== This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way
adults can. ===
The word "minor" is a legal term that can change tomorrow. 18 is not a
magical age in fact the brain is still developing way beyond that. A
twenty year old cannot consent the way a thirty year old can either,
but the question isn't equal capacity it is sufficient capacity. And at
what age that happens is NOT a determined set in stone libertarian
principle. Age of consent has been debated since the beginning of the
Party and we cannot simply by fiat declared it settled. It isn't. So
when is sufficient capacity? It differs. My views are quite
conservative and while I would not punish two young people who are both
not sufficiently capable, I do think age disparaties are a huge issue
but my view is not THE Libertarian view. Nor is it timeless. I think
our affluent culture which allows us to extend adolescent and childhood
plays a huge factor and that we simply don't raise our children to be
sufficiently capable early. In other times they did. It was a
necessity. Our being to not do so is a luxury but at what point does
that conflict with biological urges? That is a question. While I
think Arvin was nowhere near nuanced or clear on this, neither was it
nuanced or clear that he was promoting anything contrary. He may
disagree on a medical/scientific issue of when sufficient capability is
reached but a disagreement on FACT doesn't make it a disagreement on a
principle. I think he agrees that incapable people cannot give
consent. THAT is the Libertarian principles, not some arbitrary
labeling of "minor." I think the law has it about right most of the
time, but that is not anything inherent in the law, it is the law
recognizes reality. But I don't believe in set age of consent laws. I
believe in a shifting presumption of incapability.
===
I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against
themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". ===
Sure they are. If they are not the ones committing the aggression
there is no obligation to care about it. That makes them a bad person
but it doesn't make them not a libertarian. Even our own platform
recognizes this when it says that an inherent right does not create any
obligation upon other people to fulfill that right, much less care if
anyone does. A bad person =/= not libertarian.
==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. ===
As an individualist philosophy not committing theft oneself is the bare
requirement without which one is not libertarian. More is not
required. Though more is more human.
==Which means they don't care about theft. ===
No it doesn't. It means they are emotionally stunted but there are no
unassumed positive obligations in libertarianism.
==Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if
others do. ===
You are conflating not caring with saying it is okay. Saying it is
okay is advocating force. Not caring is passive. There is a
difference. And arguing Arvin crossed that line in his horrid welfare
example but I think we don't jump to the absolute worst conclusion but
likely somewhere in the middle. An unempathetic and recklessly poor
messaging.
I think being a political libertarian requires caring. Active
caring.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn
<[1]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
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][2]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][3]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][4]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[4][5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[5][6]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[6][7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:[8]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. [9]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
3. mailto:[10]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
4. [11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
5. mailto:[12]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
6. [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[14]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[16]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
2. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
4. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
6. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
8. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
9. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
10. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
12. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
14. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
16. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list