[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