[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra
Sean O’Toole
sean.otoole at lp.org
Tue Jan 23 08:25:51 EST 2018
Well said, David. I could not agree more.
--
Sean O’Toole
Alternate
Libertarian National Committee
sean.otoole at lp.org
(816) 739-2737
On January 23, 2018 at 7:18:43 AM, david.demarest at lp.org (david.demarest at lp.org) wrote:
I am not a legal expert and do not base my philosophy on legal
precedents. I operate under objective and empathetic moral law. Here is
the nutshell of my non-legal-expert intuitive assessment of the Arvin
Vohra 'moral case':
One might have empathy for but no excuse to persecute those who think
and act objectively but lack empathy. However, one should run the other
direction from those who have empathy but lack objectivity. I would
suggest that empathy without objectivity is all too often misguided,
destructive and far worse than the lack of empathy. The horrific abuses
of mankind have come not from those who lack empathy but from those who
lack objectivity.
Those abuses include mindless pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob witch-hunt
persecution that even many statists have the sense to recognize. Most
Americans, whether statist or Libertarian, do not look with pride on our
history of burning 'witches' at the stake and lynching Negroes from
lampposts. Arvin persecution should not be a source of pride for the
Libertarian Party.
I do not know Arvin well at a personal level. However, from his
writings, Arvin's objectivity and empathy stand out like shining
beacons. I would give Arvin high grades on both. I cannot say the same
for Arvin's detractors. They may exhibit what they call empathy but fall
considerably short on objectivity. Mindless pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob
witch-hunt persecution does not strike me as anything remotely related
to healthy empathy. 'Mindless' is the key word. Man's primary means of
survival is his rational capacity for abstraction and objectivity. I
expect Libertarians, of all people, to excel at objectivity. That is the
true source of healthy empathy.
Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians. However,
she absolutely nailed the moral justification for laissez faire
free-market capitalism, reason, objectivity, rational self-interest, and
healthy empathy. The Libertarian Party was created in the spirit of
Rand's credo of objectivity, reason, and rational self-interest. Has the
Libertarian Party strayed from the moral compass of objectivity, reason,
and rational self-interest? I never cease to be amazed at Libertarians
who dismiss objectivity and reason in favor of emotion-based empathy
"coming from the heart". That is pure unadulterated biological and
philosophical nonsense that has the potential to produce horrific
injustice, as we are witnessing in the persecution of Arvin Vohra.
Arvin persecutors, it is time for a gut-check on your level of
objectivity and reason. Then you will be in a better position to
pontificate about empathy.
On 2018-01-22 23:19, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Ack, plus I don't think you can prove that Arvin doesn't care about
> agression against others. I think it clear that he cares MORE about
> agression against himself. Is that unLibertarian? That brings in a
> whole other subset including proportionality, rightness or wrongness
> of
> "transfer of misery" (i.e. the classic can you shoot a human shield
> to
> stop someone from shooting you? - Block has a lot of good stuff on
> that) which is in the libertarian weeds and NOT settled. I firmly
> think you cannot transfer misery and therefore if there was a way to
> say well, I will choose for someone else to be raped so that I don't
> have to pay welfare, that would be unlibertarian. But there is no
> such
> choice, just like Rothbard's button does not exist. It is
> navel-gazing. He was more callously saying an "at least" statement
> -
> at least it could be interpreted that way. Honestly that is the
> statement that bothers me the most and is the one that tipped the
> scale
> for me.
> I am not going to get into a circular firing squad of parsing out
> the
> libertarian weeds to have a trial of philosophy because it is clear
> it
> was horrid messaging that in the BEST case scenario presented the
> ugly
> and selfish side, and not the attractive side. I think one can
> interpret it in the worst way and the best way, and that for a
> disciplinary action we need to find him wrong even in the best
> interpretation.
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> ETA: Adult and minor are legal terms but they are shorthand for
> those
> in full custodianship of their rights, and those who are wards under
> the custodianship of others for all or part of their rights. That
> is
> how I believe the Platform is intended to be interpreted if we are
> to
> interpret it in the historical train of thought of past platforms
> which
> used the same wording. My mentally disabled aunt is a legal adult.
> She is not however in full custodianship of her own rights, at least
> not all of them.
> A presumption of incapablity puts the burden of proof on those who
> would claim a development out of a state of incapability into
> capability. We all know that children are born incapable. That is
> a
> fact. I believe that fact remains true until it is shown otherwise,
> not automatic at some age. There are some 18 year olds that have
> not
> matured enough. The language of a clear path to emancipation that I
> think (I could be mistaken) that existed in old platforms is a much
> better solution. To me age of consent laws are rape laws, and we
> have
> rape laws, and they should be individually and rigourously
> prosecuted.
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> ===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
> <[3]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][4]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][5]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][6]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [4][7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [5][8]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> References
> 1. mailto:[10]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 2. [11]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 3. mailto:[12]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 5. mailto:[14]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 6. [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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 4. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 6. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 8. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 10. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 11. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 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
> 18. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 19. 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 --------------
Well said, David. I could not agree more.
--
Sean O’Toole
Alternate
Libertarian National Committee
[1]sean.otoole at lp.org
(816) 739-2737
On January 23, 2018 at 7:18:43 AM, david.demarest at lp.org
([2]david.demarest at lp.org) wrote:
I am not a legal expert and do not base my philosophy on legal
precedents. I operate under objective and empathetic moral law. Here is
the nutshell of my non-legal-expert intuitive assessment of the Arvin
Vohra 'moral case':
One might have empathy for but no excuse to persecute those who think
and act objectively but lack empathy. However, one should run the other
direction from those who have empathy but lack objectivity. I would
suggest that empathy without objectivity is all too often misguided,
destructive and far worse than the lack of empathy. The horrific abuses
of mankind have come not from those who lack empathy but from those who
lack objectivity.
Those abuses include mindless pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob witch-hunt
persecution that even many statists have the sense to recognize. Most
Americans, whether statist or Libertarian, do not look with pride on
our
history of burning 'witches' at the stake and lynching Negroes from
lampposts. Arvin persecution should not be a source of pride for the
Libertarian Party.
I do not know Arvin well at a personal level. However, from his
writings, Arvin's objectivity and empathy stand out like shining
beacons. I would give Arvin high grades on both. I cannot say the same
for Arvin's detractors. They may exhibit what they call empathy but
fall
considerably short on objectivity. Mindless pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob
witch-hunt persecution does not strike me as anything remotely related
to healthy empathy. 'Mindless' is the key word. Man's primary means of
survival is his rational capacity for abstraction and objectivity. I
expect Libertarians, of all people, to excel at objectivity. That is
the
true source of healthy empathy.
Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians. However,
she absolutely nailed the moral justification for laissez faire
free-market capitalism, reason, objectivity, rational self-interest,
and
healthy empathy. The Libertarian Party was created in the spirit of
Rand's credo of objectivity, reason, and rational self-interest. Has
the
Libertarian Party strayed from the moral compass of objectivity,
reason,
and rational self-interest? I never cease to be amazed at Libertarians
who dismiss objectivity and reason in favor of emotion-based empathy
"coming from the heart". That is pure unadulterated biological and
philosophical nonsense that has the potential to produce horrific
injustice, as we are witnessing in the persecution of Arvin Vohra.
Arvin persecutors, it is time for a gut-check on your level of
objectivity and reason. Then you will be in a better position to
pontificate about empathy.
On 2018-01-22 23:19, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Ack, plus I don't think you can prove that Arvin doesn't care about
> agression against others. I think it clear that he cares MORE about
> agression against himself. Is that unLibertarian? That brings in a
> whole other subset including proportionality, rightness or wrongness
> of
> "transfer of misery" (i.e. the classic can you shoot a human shield
> to
> stop someone from shooting you? - Block has a lot of good stuff on
> that) which is in the libertarian weeds and NOT settled. I firmly
> think you cannot transfer misery and therefore if there was a way to
> say well, I will choose for someone else to be raped so that I don't
> have to pay welfare, that would be unlibertarian. But there is no
> such
> choice, just like Rothbard's button does not exist. It is
> navel-gazing. He was more callously saying an "at least" statement
> -
> at least it could be interpreted that way. Honestly that is the
> statement that bothers me the most and is the one that tipped the
> scale
> for me.
> I am not going to get into a circular firing squad of parsing out
> the
> libertarian weeds to have a trial of philosophy because it is clear
> it
> was horrid messaging that in the BEST case scenario presented the
> ugly
> and selfish side, and not the attractive side. I think one can
> interpret it in the worst way and the best way, and that for a
> disciplinary action we need to find him wrong even in the best
> interpretation.
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> ETA: Adult and minor are legal terms but they are shorthand for
> those
> in full custodianship of their rights, and those who are wards under
> the custodianship of others for all or part of their rights. That
> is
> how I believe the Platform is intended to be interpreted if we are
> to
> interpret it in the historical train of thought of past platforms
> which
> used the same wording. My mentally disabled aunt is a legal adult.
> She is not however in full custodianship of her own rights, at least
> not all of them.
> A presumption of incapablity puts the burden of proof on those who
> would claim a development out of a state of incapability into
> capability. We all know that children are born incapable. That is
> a
> fact. I believe that fact remains true until it is shown otherwise,
> not automatic at some age. There are some 18 year olds that have
> not
> matured enough. The language of a clear path to emancipation that I
> think (I could be mistaken) that existed in old platforms is a much
> better solution. To me age of consent laws are rape laws, and we
> have
> rape laws, and they should be individually and rigourously
> prosecuted.
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> ===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
> <[3]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][4]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][5]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][6]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [4][7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [5][8]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> References
> 1. mailto:[10]elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 2. [11]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 3. mailto:[12]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 5. mailto:[14]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 6. [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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 3. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 4. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 6. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 8. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 10. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
> 11. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
> 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
> 18. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 19. 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
References
1. mailto:sean.otoole at lp.org
2. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list