[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra
Arvin Vohra
votevohra at gmail.com
Mon Jan 29 11:01:07 EST 2018
Hi All - here's what I just sent to the LNC. You can follow the
conversation at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes
Members of the Libertarian National Committee,
I have decided to respond to the motion for censure 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."
The talk of winning hearts and minds I consider to be frankly oblivious to
political reality. This last election saw two things. The first was the
election of one of the most intentionally offensive people in the history
of human politics. The second, and perhaps by our standards more important:
the support of that person by many self-identifying anarcho-capitalists. In
other words, the most libertarian of the libertarians voted for a statist.
I do not believe this happened despite his offensiveness, but rather
because of it. Trumps policies have generally been statist. His main
campaign promises talked about increasing the scope of government. And yet
many ancaps proudly and openly supported him. They saw, in his rhetoric, a
rejection not only of political correctness, but of intersectionalism,
which, whatever its original intentions may have been, has come for many to
appear as a general vilification of all success. They saw a rejection of
"respectability" politics, which they have correctly intuited has
restricted American political and social growth.
Much of the libertarian movement has caught on to this change in value
dominance. The era of apple pie respectability, in which public school
teachers and military employees are worshipped against all sense, logic,
and evidence of their work, is ending. America is becoming saturated with
real information. We are growing out of our political childhood and into an
increasingly sophisticated awakening.
Have I made it harder to win hearts and minds? I don't think so. I have
made it harder to trick people out of their votes. I have monkey wrenched
the mental gymnastics that let candidates and leaders say, "Yes, we can
have taxation funded schools in a Libertarian world, don't worry." I have
made actually winning hearts and minds, rather than pretending you have, a
prerequisite for getting a vote. And it should be. People should actually
agree with us before voting for us. Otherwise, we face the moral issue of
building a movement on lies, and the worse issue of having those who bought
into a complete misrepresentation becoming our representatives and
missionaries.
I use the example of government schools because it is something that
infuriates people on my facebook page, as well as on the LP National
facebook page. It is, to me, clear evidence that the hearts and minds many
claim are "won" have clearly not been won. Getting someone to say, "Hey,
I'm a libertarian, but I believe in government funded schooling" is not
winning hearts and minds. It's just assaulting reality. It's setting the
bar at a laughably low level, and then declaring victory.
Have I made it harder to mislabel people as libertarians, count fake
successes as real ones? Sure. We are the spearhead of the Libertarian
movement. It is essential that we increase our number of actual
conversions, not delude ourselves about where we stand. If we can focus on
actual conversions rather than make-believe ones, we can then work on
developing, trying out, and experimenting with methods that will achieve
that worthwhile and vital goal. What does it take to show people that
government funded education is wrong in all forms? I don't know. I'd love
to find out. I believe that finding that out, and working on that, is
essential for our movement to grow.
Many argue that politeness can work. I have proof that it cannot. Your
polite intellectualism has not been heard. It hasn't been heard outside the
Libertarian movement. It hasn't even been heard inside the Libertarian
movement. You can post something like "Abolish all government funded
education, including charter schools and vouchers" right now on the
national facebook page, and you'll see how many people argue that they are
libertarians but don't agree, or even that such a position is not
libertarian.
It has been pointed out to me that communication isn't about what you
meant, but about what other people hear. I agree, and have frankly and
openly agreed that some of my phrasing could be improved.
But that rule goes both ways. We on the LNC may believe that government
funded schooling is wrong in all forms. We may think we've communicated it.
But I can guarantee it has not been heard, and prove it instantly with a
facebook post. It hasn't been heard by our members, our voters, and even
some of our candidates.
Some of that pushback you're seeing to my commentary is coming because
people are finally hearing our views. They are hearing it because they are
presented bluntly and inflammatorily.
In academics, grade inflation helps no one. It boosts fake self esteem for
a short amount of time, and robs a student of actual growth and improvement
permanently. Giving ourselves grade inflation by counting pro-government
school, pro-military overreach and overstaffing, pro-welfare state
"libertarians" is not helpful to our cause and growth.
The LP has made one error after another based on timidity. In 2008, we
nominated a candidate who, when asked point blank, rejected the
legalization of hard drugs. That candidate has drifted into obscurity,
attracted zero supporters, and has had only one significant public moment
in the last few years: endorsing Mitt Romney.
At the same time, Ron Paul advocated ending the drug war in the 1980s, when
it was hard to do. His statements were seen as outrageous, politically
inexpedient, and incredibly inflammatory. And that courage formed the
underpinning of the Ron Paul revolution, a political movement many times
the size of the LP.
In my view this censure motion is ill conceived, but its damage is minimal,
as it really affects only one person. But the underlying principle of
avoiding inflammatory and offensive commentary is an incredibly bad
strategy, one at odds with both recent and historical political reality,
one that provably has not worked, and one that has weakened our movement
and legitimate growth.
Respectfully,
Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee
<https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1781376111893874#>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> Yes
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ed Marsh <[1]ed.marsh at lp.org> wrote:
>
> I vote NO on e-mail 2018-3
> Ed Marsh
> Region 2 Rep (Florida,Georgia,
> Tennessee)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 23, 2018, at 11:07 AM, William Redpath
> <[2]william.redpath at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > I vote "Yes" on the Vohra censure. Bill Redpath
> >
> >> On 2018-01-22 22:29, Elizabeth Van Horn 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
> >> [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
> >>> [4]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >>> [5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lnc-business mailing list
> >> [6]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > [8]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > [9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [10]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:ed.marsh at lp.org
> 2. mailto:william.redpath 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:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> 10. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 11. 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
>
>
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
Hi All - here's what I just sent to the LNC. You can follow the
conversation at [1]https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes
Members of the Libertarian National Committee,
I have decided to respond to the motion for censure 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."
The talk of winning hearts and minds I consider to be frankly oblivious
to political reality. This last election saw two things. The first was
the election of one of the most intentionally offensive people in the
history of human politics. The second, and perhaps by our standards
more important: the support of that person by many self-identifying
anarcho-capitalists. In other words, the most libertarian of the
libertarians voted for a statist.
I do not believe this happened despite his offensiveness, but rather
because of it. Trumps policies have generally been statist. His main
campaign promises talked about increasing the scope of government. And
yet many ancaps proudly and openly supported him. They saw, in his
rhetoric, a rejection not only of political correctness, but of
intersectionalism, which, whatever its original intentions may have
been, has come for many to appear as a general vilification of all
success. They saw a rejection of "respectability" politics, which they
have correctly intuited has restricted American political and social
growth.
Much of the libertarian movement has caught on to this change in value
dominance. The era of apple pie respectability, in which public school
teachers and military employees are worshipped against all sense,
logic, and evidence of their work, is ending. America is becoming
saturated with real information. We are growing out of our political
childhood and into an increasingly sophisticated awakening.
Have I made it harder to win hearts and minds? I don't think so. I have
made it harder to trick people out of their votes. I have monkey
wrenched the mental gymnastics that let candidates and leaders say,
"Yes, we can have taxation funded schools in a Libertarian world, don't
worry." I have made actually winning hearts and minds, rather than
pretending you have, a prerequisite for getting a vote. And it should
be. People should actually agree with us before voting for us.
Otherwise, we face the moral issue of building a movement on lies, and
the worse issue of having those who bought into a complete
misrepresentation becoming our representatives and missionaries.
I use the example of government schools because it is something that
infuriates people on my facebook page, as well as on the LP National
facebook page. It is, to me, clear evidence that the hearts and minds
many claim are "won" have clearly not been won. Getting someone to say,
"Hey, I'm a libertarian, but I believe in government funded schooling"
is not winning hearts and minds. It's just assaulting reality. It's
setting the bar at a laughably low level, and then declaring victory.
Have I made it harder to mislabel people as libertarians, count fake
successes as real ones? Sure. We are the spearhead of the Libertarian
movement. It is essential that we increase our number of actual
conversions, not delude ourselves about where we stand. If we can focus
on actual conversions rather than make-believe ones, we can then work
on developing, trying out, and experimenting with methods that will
achieve that worthwhile and vital goal. What does it take to show
people that government funded education is wrong in all forms? I don't
know. I'd love to find out. I believe that finding that out, and
working on that, is essential for our movement to grow.
Many argue that politeness can work. I have proof that it cannot. Your
polite intellectualism has not been heard. It hasn't been heard outside
the Libertarian movement. It hasn't even been heard inside the
Libertarian movement. You can post something like "Abolish all
government funded education, including charter schools and vouchers"
right now on the national facebook page, and you'll see how many people
argue that they are libertarians but don't agree, or even that such a
position is not libertarian.
It has been pointed out to me that communication isn't about what you
meant, but about what other people hear. I agree, and have frankly and
openly agreed that some of my phrasing could be improved.
But that rule goes both ways. We on the LNC may believe that government
funded schooling is wrong in all forms. We may think we've communicated
it. But I can guarantee it has not been heard, and prove it instantly
with a facebook post. It hasn't been heard by our members, our voters,
and even some of our candidates.
Some of that pushback you're seeing to my commentary is coming because
people are finally hearing our views. They are hearing it because they
are presented bluntly and inflammatorily.
In academics, grade inflation helps no one. It boosts fake self esteem
for a short amount of time, and robs a student of actual growth and
improvement permanently. Giving ourselves grade inflation by counting
pro-government school, pro-military overreach and overstaffing,
pro-welfare state "libertarians" is not helpful to our cause and
growth.
The LP has made one error after another based on timidity. In 2008, we
nominated a candidate who, when asked point blank, rejected the
legalization of hard drugs. That candidate has drifted into obscurity,
attracted zero supporters, and has had only one significant public
moment in the last few years: endorsing Mitt Romney.
At the same time, Ron Paul advocated ending the drug war in the 1980s,
when it was hard to do. His statements were seen as outrageous,
politically inexpedient, and incredibly inflammatory. And that courage
formed the underpinning of the Ron Paul revolution, a political
movement many times the size of the LP.
In my view this censure motion is ill conceived, but its damage is
minimal, as it really affects only one person. But the underlying
principle of avoiding inflammatory and offensive commentary is an
incredibly bad strategy, one at odds with both recent and historical
political reality, one that provably has not worked, and one that has
weakened our movement and legitimate growth.
Respectfully,
Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
<[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
Yes
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ed Marsh <[1][3]ed.marsh at lp.org>
wrote:
I vote NO on e-mail 2018-3
Ed Marsh
Region 2 Rep (Florida,Georgia,
Tennessee)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 23, 2018, at 11:07 AM, William Redpath
<[2][4]william.redpath at lp.org> wrote:
>
> I vote "Yes" on the Vohra censure. Bill Redpath
>
>> On 2018-01-22 22:29, Elizabeth Van Horn 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
>> [3][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
>>> [4][6]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> [5][7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> [6][8]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> [7][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [8][10]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [9][11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[10][12]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[11][13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
References
1. mailto:[14]ed.marsh at lp.org
2. mailto:[15]william.redpath at lp.org
3. [16]http://www.lpcaucus.org/
4. mailto:[17]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
5. [18]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
6. mailto:[19]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
7. [20]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
8. mailto:[21]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
9. [22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
10. mailto:[23]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
11. [24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
[25]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
[26]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
--
Arvin Vohra
[27]www.VoteVohra.com
[28]VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
References
Visible links
1. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lncvotes
2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
3. mailto:ed.marsh at lp.org
4. mailto:william.redpath 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: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:ed.marsh at lp.org
15. mailto:william.redpath at lp.org
16. http://www.lpcaucus.org/
17. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
18. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
19. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
20. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
21. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
23. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
25. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
26. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
27. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
28. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
Hidden links:
30. https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1781376111893874
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list