[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra

Starchild starchild at lp.org
Tue Apr 3 17:38:05 EDT 2018


Arvin,

	As I wrote in a previous message here, my reading of your social media post is that it was over the line, and unlike any of your previous posts, actually did appear to advocate for the initiation of force. Since the post at that time had apparently not been made public, and was not made in an LP forum, it was my hope that we would not risk damaging the party's reputation by officially taking it up here and thereby making it public and an official party matter, but rather call for your resignation as individuals.

	While I don't disagree with you as far as the moral – as opposed to practical – justification for defensive violence against individuals who are causing aggression, not all government personnel fit into that category. There are Libertarian Party members and others serving on school boards who are fighting to reduce aggression, not increase it, and an implicit sanction of indiscriminate violence against such a broad category of people in government would amount to a willingness to sacrifice such individuals as "collateral damage" in contravention of their individual rights.

	However, you have disavowed and apologized for the post, and said enough here about routinely arguing against the use of violence against the State and for the use of minimal force and the nonviolent approach advocated by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, to make that disavowal credible. If anyone attempts to use this to attack the LP, now that it has been officially raised in a motion here, they will have to overcome the fact that this was a personal post by one LP official who subsequently retracted it and apologized for his words as having been a joke in poor taste.

	While I wish you would better think some of these things through before posting, I don't see a personal post by an LNC member on a social media site, not in the name of the party, which the member has clearly retracted and apologized for as having been an inappropriate joke, as sufficient cause for involuntary removal from office. Mere poor judgment in the matter of deciding what to post via one's personal social media accounts seems less important to me on the whole than poor judgment in deciding how to vote on substantive party matters, and if I had to rank each member of the LNC on that basis, you would not come out at the bottom. I'm also mindful of your apparent state of mind, which again seems to reflect an excess of healthy libertarian sentiment against the aggression and abuses of the State, rather than a lack of it. I accept your retraction and apology.

	From the wording of the motion for suspension, it appears that some members of this body are again seeking your involuntary removal – this time without the due process of holding a meeting – on account of previous posts for which you have already been censured. 

	Furthermore I believe the wording of the motion is sloppy and contains inaccuracies. I've seen no convincing argument that anything else you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute" appears to take it as a given that you've repeatedly acted in contravention of this as well as other unnamed principles. It is also inaccurate to speak of you bringing the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute. Bringing a group's adherence to principles into disrepute is not the same as bringing the principles themselves into disrepute. The principles stand regardless of how often or how egregiously members of society violate them. And does anyone really believe that an ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is enough to "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.

	What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a far greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of party members and members of society alike from State violence, than does someone occasionally going too far.

	I vote no on the motion.

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                        RealReform at earthlink.net
                                 (415) 625-FREE
                                    @StarchildSF


On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Arvin Vohra wrote:

>   Since some were unable to see my video response to this, here is
>   something else I posted on mewe on this issue:
>   As you may have heard, some on the LNC are once again working to
>   suspend me from the LNC, based on an inappropriate joke I made on
>   [1]mewe.com. The joke was in poor taste, and I have already apologized
>   for it, and clarified my actual position (specifically, that I don't
>   advocate for shooting school boards. I would have considered that
>   obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost in social media).
>   But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the cognitive dissonance
>   that is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day, I hear
>   taxation is theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say taxation is
>   theft (they are a great way to support the LP and spread the message).
>   We agree that taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred rights.
>   We also have routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they are
>   for opposing government overreach. I've spoken officially on this
>   issue. I've said this to cheering Libertarian and Conservative groups,
>   to furious progressive groups. I know many of you have made the same
>   argument.
>   We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob us and use the
>   money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign wars, and
>   government schools. A few minutes later, we talk about how guns are
>   necessary to block government tyranny and overreach.
>   I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I
>   consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters
>   who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny that
>   would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self
>   defense?
>   Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a victimless crime not
>   enough moral justification? Is having your son or daughter locked up in
>   such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being robbed to have your
>   money used to bomb people in other countries, in your name not enough?
>   What level of tyranny would morally justify using the Second Amendmend
>   for what it was designed for?
>   Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no plans to ever
>   advocate violence against the state. I consider it unnecessary. I
>   believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not
>   needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work. As long as
>   the state keeps duping young men and women to join its enforcement arm,
>   I can't imagine any violent revolution lasting more than a few minutes.
>   As someone who trained for many years in the martial arts, I also
>   consider it against my personal principles to use a greater response
>   than what is needed. I believe in the doctrine of minimal force, which
>   is why I work within the LP, not within a citizen militia.
>   But is using a gun to defend yourself against state violence immoral?
>   God no. And violence certainly includes any violation done under threat
>   of violence.
>   Respectfully,
>   Arvin Vohra
>   Vice Chair
>   Libertarian Party
> 
>   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt <[2]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
>   wrote:
> 
>     I vote Yes.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative
> 
>   On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:
> 
>     Yes
>     ---
>     Sam Goldstein
>     Libertarian National Committee
>     [3]317-850-0726 Cell
>     On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:
> 
>     We have an electronic mail ballot.
>        Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at
>     11:59:59pm
>        Pacific time.
>        Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein, Redpath,
>        Hewitt, O'Donnell
>        Motion:
>        WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of force
>     as its
>        cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify that
>     they
>        neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve political
>     or
>        social goals.
>        RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin
>     Vohra
>        from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated
>     unacceptable
>        conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into
>        disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating
>     lethal
>        violence against state employees who are not directly threatening
>        imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our
>     membership
>        pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our
>     movement and
>        the security of all of our members without their consent.
>        -Alicia
> 
>   --
>   Arvin Vohra
>   [4]www.VoteVohra.com
>   [5]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>   (301) 320-3634
> 
> References
> 
>   1. http://mewe.com/
>   2. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>   3. tel:317-850-0726
>   4. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   5. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
   Arvin,

   As I wrote in a previous message here, my reading of your social media
   post is that it was over the line, and unlike any of your previous
   posts, actually did appear to advocate for the initiation of force.
   Since the post at that time had apparently not been made public, and
   was not made in an LP forum, it was my hope that we would not risk
   damaging the party's reputation by officially taking it up here and
   thereby making it public and an official party matter, but rather call
   for your resignation as individuals.

   While I don't disagree with you as far as the moral � as opposed to
   practical � justification for defensive violence against individuals
   who are causing aggression, not all government personnel fit into that
   category. There are Libertarian Party members and others serving on
   school boards who are fighting to reduce aggression, not increase it,
   and an implicit sanction of indiscriminate violence against such a
   broad category of people in government would amount to a willingness to
   sacrifice such individuals as "collateral damage" in contravention of
   their individual rights.

   However, you have disavowed and apologized for the post, and said
   enough here about routinely arguing against the use of violence against
   the State and for the use of minimal force and the nonviolent approach
   advocated by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, to make that
   disavowal credible. If anyone attempts to use this to attack the LP,
   now that it has been officially raised in a motion here, they will have
   to overcome the fact that this was a personal post by one LP official
   who subsequently retracted it and apologized for his words as having
   been a joke in poor taste.

   While I wish you would better think some of these things through before
   posting, I don't see a personal post by an LNC member on a social media
   site, not in the name of the party, which the member has clearly
   retracted and apologized for as having been an inappropriate joke, as
   sufficient cause for involuntary removal from office. Mere poor
   judgment in the matter of deciding what to post via one's personal
   social media accounts seems less important to me on the whole than poor
   judgment in deciding how to vote on substantive party matters, and if I
   had to rank each member of the LNC on that basis, you would not come
   out at the bottom. I'm also mindful of your apparent state of mind,
   which again seems to reflect an excess of healthy libertarian sentiment
   against the aggression and abuses of the State, rather than a lack of
   it. I accept your retraction and apology.

   From the wording of the motion for suspension, it appears that some
   members of this body are again seeking your involuntary removal � this
   time without the due process of holding a meeting � on account of
   previous posts for which you have already been censured.

   Furthermore I believe the wording of the motion is sloppy and contains
   inaccuracies. I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
   you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle,
   yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a preamble to
   accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that
   brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute" appears
   to take it as a given that you've repeatedly acted in contravention of
   this as well as other unnamed principles. It is also inaccurate to
   speak of you bringing the principles of the Libertarian Party into
   disrepute. Bringing a group's adherence to principles into disrepute is
   not the same as bringing the principles themselves into disrepute. The
   principles stand regardless of how often or how egregiously members of
   society violate them. And does anyone really believe that an
   ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed is enough to
   "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let alone the
   entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.

   What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of acknowledgment that
   routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions poses a far
   greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security of party
   members and members of society alike from State violence, than does
   someone occasionally going too far.

   I vote no on the motion.

   Love & Liberty,

                                      ((( starchild )))

   At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                           [1]RealReform at earthlink.net

                                    (415) 625-FREE

                                       @StarchildSF

   On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Arvin Vohra wrote:

     Since some were unable to see my video response to this, here is
     something else I posted on mewe on this issue:
     As you may have heard, some on the LNC are once again working to
     suspend me from the LNC, based on an inappropriate joke I made on
     [1]mewe.com. The joke was in poor taste, and I have already
   apologized
     for it, and clarified my actual position (specifically, that I don't
     advocate for shooting school boards. I would have considered that
     obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost in social media).
     But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the cognitive dissonance
     that is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day, I hear
     taxation is theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say taxation is
     theft (they are a great way to support the LP and spread the
   message).
     We agree that taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred rights.
     We also have routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they are
     for opposing government overreach. I've spoken officially on this
     issue. I've said this to cheering Libertarian and Conservative
   groups,
     to furious progressive groups. I know many of you have made the same
     argument.
     We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob us and use
   the
     money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign wars, and
     government schools. A few minutes later, we talk about how guns are
     necessary to block government tyranny and overreach.
     I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I
     consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters
     who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny
   that
     would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self
     defense?
     Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a victimless crime
   not
     enough moral justification? Is having your son or daughter locked up
   in
     such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being robbed to have
   your
     money used to bomb people in other countries, in your name not
   enough?
     What level of tyranny would morally justify using the Second
   Amendmend
     for what it was designed for?
     Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no plans to ever
     advocate violence against the state. I consider it unnecessary. I
     believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not
     needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work. As long as
     the state keeps duping young men and women to join its enforcement
   arm,
     I can't imagine any violent revolution lasting more than a few
   minutes.
     As someone who trained for many years in the martial arts, I also
     consider it against my personal principles to use a greater response
     than what is needed. I believe in the doctrine of minimal force,
   which
     is why I work within the LP, not within a citizen militia.
     But is using a gun to defend yourself against state violence immoral?
     God no. And violence certainly includes any violation done under
   threat
     of violence.
     Respectfully,
     Arvin Vohra
     Vice Chair
     Libertarian Party
     On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt
   <[2]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
     wrote:
       I vote Yes.  Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative
     On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:
       Yes
       ---
       Sam Goldstein
       Libertarian National Committee
       [3]317-850-0726 Cell
       On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:
       We have an electronic mail ballot.
          Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12, 2018 at
       11:59:59pm
          Pacific time.
          Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes, Goldstein, Redpath,
          Hewitt, O'Donnell
          Motion:
          WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the non-initiation of force
       as its
          cardinal principle and requires each of its members certify that
       they
          neither advocate or believe in violent means to achieve
   political
       or
          social goals.
          RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin
       Vohra
          from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and repeated
       unacceptable
          conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into
          disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating
       lethal
          violence against state employees who are not directly
   threatening
          imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our
       membership
          pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our
       movement and
          the security of all of our members without their consent.
          -Alicia
     --
     Arvin Vohra
     [4]www.VoteVohra.com
     [5]VoteVohra at gmail.com
     (301) 320-3634
   References
     1. [2]http://mewe.com/
     2. [3]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
     3. tel:317-850-0726
     4. [4]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
     5. [5]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

References

   1. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   2. http://mewe.com/
   3. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
   4. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   5. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list