[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