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

Starchild starchild at lp.org
Wed Apr 4 01:39:49 EDT 2018


Caryn Ann,

	My further responses interspersed below...

On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

>   ==When you say "He defended the morality of violence against all 'enemy
>   collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I don't know to
>   which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know if I'd interpret
>   them as you apparently are.==
>   I know how our members are.  Yes you are absent from the world of
>   social media - where the damage is happening.  He is opposed to
>   violence against the state because it doesn't work but goads people to
>   follow the trail of when it is moral to use guns against these people

	Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". I don't use the social media site that starts with an "F", but I'm on Twitter, numerous email lists (including the Radical Caucus list, which it would be cool if the caucus actually used!). I just joined MeWe. When you refer to "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking about? 

>   --- my example of the joking abortion clinic bomber is apt - language
>   means something and has consequences.
>   == I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense or defense
>   of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think non-pacifist
>   libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think it's necessarily a
>   good idea, or the path I want to follow.==
>   I do too.  That was never the point.  You are not doing it in the
>   context of a school shooting, venomous rhetoric against teachers AND
>   parents, and then claiming it was a "joke" and goading people to
>   consider just when they might pick up a gun against these people.

	Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts other than what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not parents.
	
>   ==The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having already
>   faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not to rely on
>   that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a lot like
>   double jeopardy.===
>   It is perfectly a good reason since censure is meant as a WARNING, and
>   citing the warning when taking the next step is how reality works.

 	The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the language given then as justification for censure, and now uses that language as justification for suspension (which was previously rejected). The only thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he has disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted during the intervening weeks).


>   ==And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable. If he hadn't
>   retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to resign, and if he
>   didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion for
>   suspension.==
>   Funny that, he keeps making horrid statements and "retracting" them.
>   And promising more.  I think you are being gullible beyond belief and
>   excusing the inexcusable.

	Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he stood by the basic positions taken therein. That's different than what he's saying in this case – here's what he just posted on MeWe:

"Today, I’m being accused of advocating violence. Frankly, that’s false. Like many of you, I have said that the Second Amendment is for defending yourself against government. I’ve also, repeatedly pointed out that a violent revolution is neither necessary nor likely to work. I’ve advocated against violence, even morally justified violence, repeatedly. I’ve even advocated against “legal” violence done by the state, and encouraged young men and women to find nonviolent work, rather than join the military.

I don’t advocate violence. I don’t support it. I don’t support “legal” violence done by the state. I don’t support morally justified violence against the state. I oppose violence in every form.

Did I make a joke about violence? Yes. Did I also apologize and clarify my position a few hours later? Yes. Did I emphasize my opposition to violence? Yes.

I’ve been very clear about my positions. I know many of you don’t agree with them, but I haven’t said “Haha, just kidding,” because I was never kidding. Military service is immoral, because U.S. foreign policy is immoral. Government school involvement is immoral, because theft is immoral. Age of consent laws, which have the state usurp natural rights that stem from self ownership as well as family rights, are also immoral. I continue to stand by each of those positions.

But I’m not standing by a joke taken literally, because it is a joke taken literally. A joke in poor taste, as I’ve clearly stated, but a joke nonetheless."


>   ===I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a strong
>   supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be strengthened
>   (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as scoring some
>   minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership positions in
>   the party).==
>   I suspect you don't, since it was never a LITMUS test to begin with no
>   matter how much we would like it to be so.
>   From David Nolan, Interestingly, most people in the LP do not know why
>   it was originally placed on membership applications. We did it not
>   because we believed that we could keep out "bad" people by asking them
>   to sign--after all, evil people will lie to achieve their ends--but to
>   provide some evidence that the LP was not a group advocating violent
>   overthrow of the gov't. In the early 70's, memories of Nixon's "enemies
>   list" and the McCarthy hearings of the 50's were still fresh in
>   people's minds, and we wanted to protect ourselves from future
>   witch-hunts.^[1][2]

	I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test. It's better than nothing, but the language leaves much room for interpretation. Which is why I think it would be helpful to have something more specific, like asking people's positions on a sampling of civil liberties, economic freedom, and war/peace/nationalism questions.

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


>   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild <[2]starchild at lp.org> wrote:
> 
>     Caryn Ann,
>             When you say "He defended the morality of violence against
>     all 'enemy collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I
>     don't know to which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know
>     if I'd interpret them as you apparently are.
>             I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense or
>     defense of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think
>     non-pacifist libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think
>     it's necessarily a good idea, or the path I want to follow.
>> "Given that this body already censured him using that same
>     language..."
>             The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having
>     already faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not
>     to rely on that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a
>     lot like double jeopardy.
>             And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable. If
>     he hadn't retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to resign,
>     and if he didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion
>     for suspension.
>             I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a strong
>     supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be strengthened
>     (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as scoring
>     some minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership
>     positions in the party).
>     Love & Liberty,
>                                       ((( starchild )))
>     At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                            [3]RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                    (415) 625-FREE
>                                       @StarchildSF
>     *Apologies for the use of CAPS for emphasis, but italics and
>     boldface still don't work on this list since our switch to new email
>     servers.
> 
>   On Apr 3, 2018, at 3:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>  Starchild--
>>  ==I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
>>     you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression
>>  Principle,===
>>  Because you fall into the trap of the game of saying something
>>  different later.  He defended the morality of violence against all
>>  "enemy collaborators" such as teachers and school boards.
>>  ==   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==
>>  Given that this body already censured him using that same language,
>   it
>>  IS a given.
>>  ==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.==
>>  I do.  The Party founders did.  Your statements are in ignorance of
>   the
>>  history of WHY we have that pledge to begin with.
>>    == 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 don't have a scale of what harms more, but talking about an
>>  exaggeration, I routinely rail against failure to take strongly
>>  libertarian positions.  This is not an either/or.
>>  But your vote is your vote - you think a wink/wink joke about
>   violence
>>  in the whole context of his rhetoric is acceptable.  Let's say a
>>  pro-lifers routinely called doctors murderers and accessories to
>   murder
>>  (or let's say - enemy collaborators) and then "joked" about bombing
>   an
>>  abortion clinic --- how would that fly?  Like a lead zeppelin.
>   Just
>>  like this does.
>>  Once again we prove that freedom must mean that bullies get to walk
>   all
>>  over people, conduct outrageous acts, and there is no will to
>>  disassociate.  The LNC is the biggest proof that voluntary
>   government
>>  will not protect the vulnerable - we can't even take care of our
>   own
>>  problems.
>> 
> 
>>  On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Starchild <[1][4]starchild at lp.org>
>   wrote:
>> 
>>       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][2][5]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][3][6]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][4][7]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][5][8]www.VoteVohra.com
>>       [5][6][9]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>       (301) 320-3634
>>     References
>> 
>>         1. [2][7][10]http://mewe.com/
>>         2. [3]mailto:[8][11]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>         3. tel:317-850-0726
>>         4. [4][9][12]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>         5. [5]mailto:[10][13]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>    References
>>       1. mailto:[11][14]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>       2. [12][15]http://mewe.com/
>>       3. mailto:[13][16]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 
>>     4. [14][17]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>     5. mailto:[15][18]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 
>>  --
>>  --
>>  In Liberty,
>>  Caryn Ann Harlos
>>  Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>  Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>     Washington)
>>  - [16]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>>  Communications Director, [17]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>  Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>  A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>  We defend your rights
>>  And oppose the use of force
>>  Taxation is theft
>> 
>> References
>> 
>>  1. mailto:[19]starchild at lp.org
>>  2. mailto:[20]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>  3. [21]http://mewe.com/
>>  4. mailto:[22]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>  5. [23]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>  6. mailto:[24]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>  7. [25]http://mewe.com/
>>  8. mailto:[26]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>  9. [27]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 10. mailto:[28]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 11. mailto:[29]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 12. [30]http://mewe.com/
>> 13. mailto:[31]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 14. [32]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 15. mailto:[33]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 16. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 17. [35]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
> 
>   --
>   --
>   In Liberty,
>   Caryn Ann Harlos
>   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
>   - [36]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>   Communications Director, [37]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>   We defend your rights
>   And oppose the use of force
>   Taxation is theft
> 
> References
> 
>   1. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
>   2. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>   3. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>   4. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>   5. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>   6. http://mewe.com/
>   7. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>   8. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>   9. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>  10. http://mewe.com/
>  11. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>  12. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>  13. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>  14. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>  15. http://mewe.com/
>  16. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>  17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>  18. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>  19. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>  20. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>  21. http://mewe.com/
>  22. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>  23. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>  24. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>  25. http://mewe.com/
>  26. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>  27. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>  28. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>  29. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>  30. http://mewe.com/
>  31. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>  32. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>  33. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>  34. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>  35. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>  36. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>  37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

-------------- next part --------------
   Caryn Ann,

   My further responses interspersed below...

   On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

     ==When you say "He defended the morality of violence against all
   'enemy
     collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I don't know to
     which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know if I'd
   interpret
     them as you apparently are.==
     I know how our members are.  Yes you are absent from the world of
     social media - where the damage is happening.  He is opposed to
     violence against the state because it doesn't work but goads people
   to
     follow the trail of when it is moral to use guns against these people

   Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". I don't use the
   social media site that starts with an "F", but I'm on Twitter, numerous
   email lists (including the Radical Caucus list, which it would be cool
   if the caucus actually used!). I just joined MeWe. When you refer to
   "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking about?

     --- my example of the joking abortion clinic bomber is apt - language
     means something and has consequences.
     == I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense or defense
     of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think non-pacifist
     libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think it's necessarily
   a
     good idea, or the path I want to follow.==
     I do too.  That was never the point.  You are not doing it in the
     context of a school shooting, venomous rhetoric against teachers AND
     parents, and then claiming it was a "joke" and goading people to
     consider just when they might pick up a gun against these people.

   Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts other than
   what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not parents.

     ==The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having already
     faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not to rely
   on
     that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a lot like
     double jeopardy.===
     It is perfectly a good reason since censure is meant as a WARNING,
   and
     citing the warning when taking the next step is how reality works.

     The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the language
   given then as justification for censure, and now uses that language as
   justification for suspension (which was previously rejected). The only
   thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
   ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he has
   disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted during
   the intervening weeks).

     ==And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable. If he
   hadn't
     retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to resign, and if he
     didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion for
     suspension.==
     Funny that, he keeps making horrid statements and "retracting" them.
     And promising more.  I think you are being gullible beyond belief and
     excusing the inexcusable.

   Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
   apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he stood by
   the basic positions taken therein. That's different than what he's
   saying in this case � here's what he just posted on MeWe:
   "Today, I�m being accused of advocating violence. Frankly,
   that�s false. Like many of you, I have said that the Second Amendment
   is for defending yourself against government. I�ve also, repeatedly
   pointed out that a violent revolution is neither necessary nor likely
   to work. I�ve advocated against violence, even morally justified
   violence, repeatedly. I�ve even advocated against �legal� violence done
   by the state, and encouraged young men and women to find nonviolent
   work, rather than join the military.
   I don�t advocate violence. I don�t support it. I don�t support �legal�
   violence done by the state. I don�t support morally justified violence
   against the state. I oppose violence in every form.
   Did I make a joke about violence? Yes. Did I also apologize and clarify
   my position a few hours later? Yes. Did I emphasize my opposition to
   violence? Yes.
   I�ve been very clear about my positions. I know many of you don�t agree
   with them, but I haven�t said �Haha, just kidding,� because I was never
   kidding. Military service is immoral, because U.S. foreign policy is
   immoral. Government school involvement is immoral, because theft
   is immoral. Age of consent laws, which have the state usurp natural
   rights that stem from self ownership as well as family rights, are
   also immoral. I continue to stand by each of those positions.
   But I�m not standing by a joke taken literally, because it is a
   joke taken literally. A joke in poor taste, as I�ve clearly stated, but
   a joke nonetheless."

     ===I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a strong
     supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be strengthened
     (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as scoring some
     minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership positions in
     the party).==
     I suspect you don't, since it was never a LITMUS test to begin with
   no
     matter how much we would like it to be so.
     From David Nolan, Interestingly, most people in the LP do not know
   why
     it was originally placed on membership applications. We did it not
     because we believed that we could keep out "bad" people by asking
   them
     to sign--after all, evil people will lie to achieve their ends--but
   to
     provide some evidence that the LP was not a group advocating violent
     overthrow of the gov't. In the early 70's, memories of Nixon's
   "enemies
     list" and the McCarthy hearings of the 50's were still fresh in
     people's minds, and we wanted to protect ourselves from future
     witch-hunts.^[1][2]

   I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test. It's better
   than nothing, but the language leaves much room for interpretation.
   Which is why I think it would be helpful to have something more
   specific, like asking people's positions on a sampling of civil
   liberties, economic freedom, and war/peace/nationalism questions.
   Love & Liberty,
                                        ((( starchild )))
   At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                              [1]RealReform at earthlink.net
                                      (415) 625-FREE
                                         @StarchildSF

     On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild <[2]starchild at lp.org>
   wrote:
       Caryn Ann,
               When you say "He defended the morality of violence against
       all 'enemy collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I
       don't know to which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know
       if I'd interpret them as you apparently are.
               I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense or
       defense of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think
       non-pacifist libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think
       it's necessarily a good idea, or the path I want to follow.

     "Given that this body already censured him using that same

       language..."
               The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having
       already faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not
       to rely on that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a
       lot like double jeopardy.
               And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable. If
       he hadn't retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to
   resign,
       and if he didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion
       for suspension.
               I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a
   strong
       supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be strengthened
       (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as scoring
       some minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership
       positions in the party).
       Love & Liberty,
                                         ((( starchild )))
       At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                              [3]RealReform at earthlink.net
                                      (415) 625-FREE
                                         @StarchildSF
       *Apologies for the use of CAPS for emphasis, but italics and
       boldface still don't work on this list since our switch to new
   email
       servers.
     On Apr 3, 2018, at 3:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

      Starchild--

      ==I've seen no convincing argument that anything else

         you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression

      Principle,===

      Because you fall into the trap of the game of saying something

      different later.  He defended the morality of violence against all

      "enemy collaborators" such as teachers and school boards.

      ==   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==

      Given that this body already censured him using that same language,

     it

      IS a given.

      ==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.==

      I do.  The Party founders did.  Your statements are in ignorance of

     the

      history of WHY we have that pledge to begin with.

        == 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 don't have a scale of what harms more, but talking about an

      exaggeration, I routinely rail against failure to take strongly

      libertarian positions.  This is not an either/or.

      But your vote is your vote - you think a wink/wink joke about

     violence

      in the whole context of his rhetoric is acceptable.  Let's say a

      pro-lifers routinely called doctors murderers and accessories to

     murder

      (or let's say - enemy collaborators) and then "joked" about bombing

     an

      abortion clinic --- how would that fly?  Like a lead zeppelin.

     Just

      like this does.

      Once again we prove that freedom must mean that bullies get to walk

     all

      over people, conduct outrageous acts, and there is no will to

      disassociate.  The LNC is the biggest proof that voluntary

     government

      will not protect the vulnerable - we can't even take care of our

     own

      problems.

      On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Starchild <[1][4]starchild at lp.org>

     wrote:

           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][2][5]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][3][6]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][4][7]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][5][8]www.VoteVohra.com

           [5][6][9]VoteVohra at gmail.com

           (301) 320-3634

         References

             1. [2][7][10]http://mewe.com/

             2. [3]mailto:[8][11]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

             3. tel:317-850-0726

             4. [4][9][12]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

             5. [5]mailto:[10][13]VoteVohra at gmail.com

        References

           1. mailto:[11][14]RealReform at earthlink.net

           2. [12][15]http://mewe.com/

           3. mailto:[13][16]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

         4. [14][17]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

         5. mailto:[15][18]VoteVohra at gmail.com

      --

      --

      In Liberty,

      Caryn Ann Harlos

      Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,

      Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,

       Washington)

      - [16]Caryn.Ann. [2]Harlos at LP.org

      Communications Director, [17]Libertarian Party of Colorado

      Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

      A haiku to the Statement of Principles:

      We defend your rights

      And oppose the use of force

      Taxation is theft

     References

      1. mailto:[19]starchild at lp.org

      2. mailto:[20]RealReform at earthlink.net

      3. [21]http://mewe.com/

      4. mailto:[22]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

      5. [23]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

      6. mailto:[24]VoteVohra at gmail.com

      7. [25]http://mewe.com/

      8. mailto:[26]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

      9. [27]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

     10. mailto:[28]VoteVohra at gmail.com

     11. mailto:[29]RealReform at earthlink.net

     12. [30]http://mewe.com/

     13. mailto:[31]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

     14. [32]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

     15. mailto:[33]VoteVohra at gmail.com

     16. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

     17. [35]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

     --
     --
     In Liberty,
     Caryn Ann Harlos
     Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
     Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
   Washington)
     - [36]Caryn.Ann. [3]Harlos at LP.org
     Communications Director, [37]Libertarian Party of Colorado
     Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
     A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
     We defend your rights
     And oppose the use of force
     Taxation is theft
   References
     1. [4]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
     2. [5]mailto:starchild at lp.org
     3. [6]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
     4. [7]mailto:starchild at lp.org
     5. [8]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
     6. [9]http://mewe.com/
     7. [10]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
     8. [11]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
     9. [12]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
    10. [13]http://mewe.com/
    11. [14]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
    12. [15]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
    13. [16]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
    14. [17]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
    15. [18]http://mewe.com/
    16. [19]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
    17. [20]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
    18. [21]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
    19. [22]mailto:starchild at lp.org
    20. [23]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
    21. [24]http://mewe.com/
    22. [25]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
    23. [26]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
    24. [27]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
    25. [28]http://mewe.com/
    26. [29]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
    27. [30]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
    28. [31]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
    29. [32]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
    30. [33]http://mewe.com/
    31. [34]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
    32. [35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
    33. [36]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
    34. [37]mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
    35. [38]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
    36. [39]mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
    37. [40]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   2. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
   3. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
   4. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
   5. mailto:starchild at lp.org
   6. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   7. mailto:starchild at lp.org
   8. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   9. http://mewe.com/
  10. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  11. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  12. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  13. http://mewe.com/
  14. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  15. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  16. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  17. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  18. http://mewe.com/
  19. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  20. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  21. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  22. mailto:starchild at lp.org
  23. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  24. http://mewe.com/
  25. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  26. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  27. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  28. http://mewe.com/
  29. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  30. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  31. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  32. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
  33. http://mewe.com/
  34. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  36. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  37. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  38. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  39. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  40. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list