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

david.demarest at lp.org david.demarest at lp.org
Thu Apr 5 10:11:26 EDT 2018


The Libertarian Party was born from the radical ideas introduced by Ayn
Rand. She was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians, perhaps
because she thought they were stealing her ideas and misinterpreting them.
And interpret them, they did. Rand absolutely nailed the moral justification
for reason, rational self-interest, and laissez faire capitalism. Rand was a
Minarchist and perhaps a mild chauvinist. She suggested that top-down
leaders should be men, not women. The radicals that created the LP built the
party and Statement of Principles by taking Rand's admirable intellectual
process a step further. They had the temerity and courage to examine the
moral justification for government, or lack thereof. Make no mistake, the LP
was born of radical, controversial ideas expressed with passion that grew
the movement exponentially based largely on Rand's ideas that filled the
intellectual vacuum that existed prior to the release of ‘Atlas Shrugged’.

 

As many intellectual movements do, at least at the top-down political level,
the Libertarian Party gradually moved away from its radical roots,
ostensibly to avoid scaring off voters. Then along came Dr. Ron Paul. His
radical interpretation of what was wrong with government and specific
remedies reinvigorated the LP and generated a huge following, especially
among the young. Many Libertarians, both radicals and moderates, that were
inspired by both Ayn Rand and Dr. Ron Paul, disagree with specific points in
Rand’s and Dr. Paul’s Libertarian world views, particularly on the issue of
Minarchism versus Voluntaryism.

 

Our specific ideological disagreements, however, cannot obscure the fact
that radical, controversial ideas, expressed passionately by inspirational
leaders, such and Rand and Dr. Paul, were and will continue to be the
driving force that sustains the broader Libertarian movement. The question
is whether the political arm of the movement, the Libertarian Party, will
follow suit, inspire others with our intellectual courage, and lead by
example with new and controversial ideas. Or will we apologize to voters for
our principles and gradually drift toward the fate of the old parties that
blatantly appease voters to win hollow political victories really aimed at
gaining authority over others.

Who among us will have the intellectual foresight, creativity, courage, and
passion necessary to introduce new and controversial ideas that will inspire
non-Libertarians to vote for Libertarian candidates, win meaningful
elections at all levels to obtain regulatory relief, and upsize the
voluntary market sector while downsizing the coercive statist sector? Who
among us will be the next Ayn Rand or Dr. Ron Paul to reinvigorate and
re-radicalize the Libertarian Party in our quest for freedom, nothing more,
nothing less, for all people?

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of Starchild
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:55 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra

 

 

Caryn Ann,

 

                No worries about not being able to take my call, I know you
do an incredible amount of work for the party and certainly don't begrudge
you your family time. And I appreciate your kind words about my creativity
and writing ability. I think the latter can be rather hit-or-miss – I don't
always feel particularly articulate, and sometimes I can just be lazy or
sloppy. Your essay below is very well written by the way, even though the
tone is informal.

 

                I'm not aware of ContraPoints, although I do consume a wide
variety of media from different viewpoints both left and right as well as
libertarian, as I agree it's good to be familiar with the arguments for
their respective brands of statism. Will try to check that out.

 

                I can look at pages on the "F" site now, if someone sends me
a link, I just can't post there without an account. Aside from my desire not
to contribute to the problem of society entrusting certain companies with
too much power, the problem with creating a dummy account on that site in
order to see what Libertarians are saying there is that people would
naturally want to know who I am before friending me, and that process of
getting into everybody's friend networks to see the conversations would
naturally take some time. Meanwhile, as it became commonly known among
members of our community that Account X was me under a different name, it
seems inevitable that someone not wanting my voice there for whatever
reason(s) would anonymously report me and get it shut down.

                

                

> ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==

>   Then you conceded my point. 

 

 

                You seem to be under the impression that I was trying to say
it was designed as a litmus test. That's not what I was trying to say. I was
recognizing that it IS a kind of litmus test, but that we could use a better
one.

 

 

>   He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications. That
is the charitable reading. Or you are saying he passive aggressively just
said I am sorry you are such crybabies. 

 

                I think there's a difference between walking back specific
phrasing that caused offense, and disavowing the underlying message that
readers would naturally get from a post, which I'm not aware of him doing
until now.

 

                But to get to the heart of this. While there are various
individual points of your argument with which I am in agreement, the overall
caricature you paint of Arvin just doesn't square with the observations of
my own senses – the talk of "mind games", "gaslighting", "bad actors",
"trolls", "edgelords" (this sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel!),
posts that "ooze with glee", "enjoy(ing) what (he) put(s) others through",
etc. – none of this accords with my personal sense of the individual I've
come to know during two terms on the LNC. 

 

                I'm not saying YOU are trying to "gaslight" us; I don't
doubt your sincerity. But take a step back and think about the kind of
person that Arvin would have to be, in order for all the stuff you're saying
about him to be true, and (for everyone) ask yourselves whether that's
really the same person we've known on this committee.

 

Love & Liberty,

       

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                         <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net>
RealReform at earthlink.net

                                (415) 625-FREE

                                  @StarchildSF

 

 

On Apr 4, 2018, at 12:12 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

 

>   Starchild, we are not going to change each other's minds.  I could not

>   take your calls as I was recording live for the LP.  Also honestly, I

>   am not sacrificing any more family time for Arvin.  Any time I do will

>   be getting on the phone with members who now think the LP is not for

>   them - that non-edgelords need not apply.  Yes, I get those calls.

>   ==Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". ...When you

>   refer to

>      "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking

>   about?==

>   How members are taking it.  On Facebeast.

>   ==   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.==

>   Starchild at this point it is incumbent on you to get a dummy account

>   and research and see for yourself.

>   ==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).===

>   That is what citing is.  And it was rejected as not enough THEN, so

>   censure, in which the next step is removal. That is the progression of

>   professional discipline.

>   ==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).===

>   First Starchild, I think you may be aware of the YouTuber

>   ContraPoints.  Excellent liberal commentator for people to get out of

>   the Milo echo chamber and hear good liberal defenses.  I don't agree

>   with her, but I respect her immensely.  She talks about the difficulty

>   of dealing with ethno nationalists - who say all the fashy things but

>   then deny it.  There comes a point where it is a body of evidence.  The

>   analogy here is to how gaslighting works NOT any idea that anyone here

>   is fashy (OBVIOUSLY NO ONE HERE IS) - just showing how these things

>   work and how Libertarians are often hoodwinked.  I can send you the

>   link to her video - it is fantastic, and I think you would love her as

>   a person.  She reminds me of you with her creative genius. Back to

>   Arvin, It was more than ill-advised, it was inexcusable for a leader of

>   the LP.  Just like it would be inexcusable for a leader of the ADL to

>   make a "get into the ovens" "joke."  Apologies and alleged disavowing

>   (many many people do not believe it because again, he goes on to talk

>   about WHEN it is acceptable in the same sentence - taking away any

>   genuineness or utility of any disavowal and is why I don't buy his

>   later disavowal either - I just don't.  I'm a wise old bird when it

>   comes to these mind games) do not make everything okay.  This is

>   repeated behaviour and it is enough.  I was once in an abusive

>   marriage.  Yes he apologized.  Many times.  But there came a time when

>   it was enough.  And my ex genuinely wanted to do better (or convinced

>   me he did) - Arvin has promised us he will be worse.  His words ring

>   hollow particularly when coupled with a call to defend taking up arms

>   and lethal force.

>   ==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.===

>   He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.

>   That is the charitable reading.  Or you are saying he passive

>   aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies.  He is

>   standing by this basic position too - it is not very utilitarian to

>   shoot up school boards and to HIM it may not be proportional - but you

>   know, they are the enemy and their collaborators.  You simply have to

>   read carefully.  Its in the very post here - why do you think two

>   people changed to YES - AFTER reading his "defense."  Because it read

>   like a fertilizer bomb.  Our words have impact.  I watched some

>   specials on what drove McVeigh to his horrific act - mixing bad

>   government with reckless rhetoric and a healthy dose of nuttiness and a

>   big kaboom comes out.  Free speech is not consequenceless speech.  That

>   girl who goaded her male friend over text to just kill himself and he

>   did - she didn't kill him.  He still had agency.  It is a danger of

>   free speech, but it doesn't make her speech noble or good.  Our words -

>   as leaders - have influence.  We took these positions knowing that.

>   Libertarians believe in responsibility.  Part of that responsibility is

>   that you don't as a leader in the third largest political party in the

>   US in a politically violent time, OVER THE BODIES OF DEAD TEENS, "joke"

>   about murdering school board officials - when we run school board

>   officials!!!  By Arvin's logic, we are enemy collaborators.  Many

>   anarchists of his POV think so.  This anarchist does not.

>   ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==

>   Then you conceded my point.  It was put in place as a barrier, a

>   protection, to OUR MEMBERS.  Which our Vice Chair blithely "joked

>   away."  Not acceptable. Not okay.  And another note ends up in many

>   members files due to Arvin.  Its all fun and games until shit gets

>   real. He either was so obtuse and tone deaf to make such an

>   inappropriate "joke" (coupled with his past inappropriate comments

>   about preferring that little girls get impregnated by much older men

>   with jobs rather than an equally confused kid) OR he meant it.  OR

>   potentially a combination of both.  "Jokes" are often "funny" to the

>   people who make them because there is some small grain of truth in them

>   to the maker and to the audience.  We laugh at inappropriate

>   stereotypes because there ARE some people like that (the problem is

>   making a whole GROUP like that and making neutral characteristics to be

>   malignant or bad when it is just people being people).  To wit, there

>   are a lot of radical leftist feminists with pink hair.  I am not one of

>   them. But people laugh when that joke is made towards me.  It is funny

>   because here is some truth. And then I get an opportunity to show how

>   stupid collectivization is.  What kernel of truth did Arvin find SO

>   FUNNY?  That he juxtaposed it with the murder of children!?:!  As a

>   political leader?????  There are people who make "rape jokes."  I

>   question what in the person exists for them to even consider that a

>   "joke" unless it was to show some underlying truth through dark evil.

>   What underlying truth is there in this?  Not to mention that THIS IS A

>   PATTERN.  Arvin has had for months - quite seriously - made posts that

>   follow the pattern of Bad Idea: XXXX, Good Idea: XXXXX or more

>   frequently Bad Idea XXXX, Worse Idea XXXXX.  So he then goes and says

>   Bad Idea school shootings.  Good Idea School Board Shootings, and no

>   everyone is supposed to magically know that THIS one was not serious.

>   That he broke character.  (it also troubles me that he admits he

>   wouldn't say that on FB but WeMe (or whatever silly name it is) is

>   edgier so its all okay.....   so perhaps helicopter ride jokes are also

>   okay, you just gotta be down with the Hoppe dudes to make them).

>   Why do we find it so ironic when the fundamentalist theocrat who rails

>   against gay people is found in bed with another of the same sex.  Not

>   because we think he should not have the right or any moral judgment

>   about the intimate act.  We rightly note the hypocrisy of a person who

>   is part of a movement that condemns others for such things doing such

>   things.  We are a movement built on PEACE and non-initiation of force.

>   To have one of our leaders make a joke out of our cardinal principle

>   tickles the same sense of wrongness.  Mother Theresa could get away

>   with a nun joke.  She couldn't get away with a joke about starving

>   Indian children, even if she apologized.  That is not thought police.

>   That is not unLibertarian.  It is sheer meritocracy.

>   There are no words I can explain this better with Starchild.  You are

>   brilliant and can out-write me on any day of the week and twice on

>   Sunday.  But you are off base here, and I think lost in a Libertopia

>   where there are not bad actors and trolls and destructive edgelords

>   that act that way because they enjoy what they put others through.  Our

>   failure to see and deal with is evidence that dangerous sociopaths (NO,

>   that is not what I am saying is going on here) would have a field day

>   in "our world" because we would buy their silver-tongued

>   "explanations."  We have got the gentle as doves part down pat.  We

>   need to brush up on the wise as serpents part.

>   I'm done.  I have spilled my ration of digital ink.

>   What is even worse about what Arvin has done - and his posts over it

>   ooze with glee - he is fracturing us with all the zeal of the High

>   Septon -- the Party will not be pure until she is stripped and paraded

>   through the streets in atonement for our sins of a ticket that didn't

>   always stick to libertarian principles.  That isn't what he was elected

>   to do.  He did have recourse as Vice Chair - he could have moved to

>   disqualify them.  He did not.  He can resign and not have the weight of

>   this responsibility if he wishes.  Life involves choices, and we chose

>   these roles and responsibilities.

>   This is a cumulative case of which the "lets murder the school board"

>   "joke" is just the latest.  He was censured.  That is a probationary

>   warning. He didn't take heed and picked the one thing that holds us

>   together - the membership pledge of non-aggression - as the butt of his

>   "joke" built on the youthful victims who woke up that day wondering

>   about how much homework they would have or if their crush was still mad

>   at them - not contemplating that those same bodies carefully dressed

>   and ready would within hours be cold and dead and the only clothing

>   that would matter would be the attire they would be buried in.

>   Let me play the Septa for a moment and say.... "shame."

> 

>   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Starchild <[1]
<mailto:starchild at lp.org> starchild at lp.org> wrote:

> 

>        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][2] <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net>
RealReform at earthlink.net

>                                           (415) 625-FREE

>                                              @StarchildSF

>          On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild

>     <[2][3] <mailto:starchild at lp.org> 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][4] <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net>
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][5] <mailto:starchild at lp.org> 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][6]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][7]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][8] <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
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][9] <http://www.VoteVohra.com> www.VoteVohra.com

>                [5][6][9][10] <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com>
VoteVohra at gmail.com

>                (301) 320-3634

>              References

>                  1. [2][7][10][11] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>                  2. [3] <mailto:[8][11][12]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[8][11][12]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>                  3.  <tel:317-850-0726> tel:317-850-0726

>                  4. [4][9][12][13] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/>
http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>                  5. [5] <mailto:[10][13][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[10][13][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>             References

>                1.  <mailto:[11][14][15]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[11][14][15]RealReform at earthlink.net

>                2. [12][15][16] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>                3.  <mailto:[13][16][17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[13][16][17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>              4. [14][17][18] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/>
http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>              5.  <mailto:[15][18][19]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[15][18][19]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] <mailto:Harlos at LP.org> 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][20]starchild at lp.org>
mailto:[19][20]starchild at lp.org

>           2.  <mailto:[20][21]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[20][21]RealReform at earthlink.net

>           3. [21][22] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>           4.  <mailto:[22][23]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[22][23]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>           5. [23][24] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/>
http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>           6.  <mailto:[24][25]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[24][25]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>           7. [25][26] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>           8.  <mailto:[26][27]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[26][27]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>           9. [27][28] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/>
http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>          10.  <mailto:[28][29]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[28][29]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>          11.  <mailto:[29][30]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[29][30]RealReform at earthlink.net

>          12. [30][31] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>          13.  <mailto:[31][32]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[31][32]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>          14. [32][33] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/>
http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>          15.  <mailto:[33][34]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[33][34]VoteVohra at gmail.com

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

>          17. [35][35] <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
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] <mailto:Harlos at LP.org> 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][36] <http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#>
http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#

>     cite_note-2

>          2. [5] <mailto:[37]starchild at lp.org> mailto:[37]starchild at lp.org

>          3. [6] <mailto:[38]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[38]RealReform at earthlink.net

>          4. [7] <mailto:[39]starchild at lp.org> mailto:[39]starchild at lp.org

>          5. [8] <mailto:[40]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[40]RealReform at earthlink.net

>          6. [9][41] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>          7. [10] <mailto:[42]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[42]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>          8. [11][43] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>          9. [12] <mailto:[44]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[44]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>         10. [13][45] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>         11. [14] <mailto:[46]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[46]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>         12. [15][47] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>         13. [16] <mailto:[48]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[48]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>         14. [17] <mailto:[49]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[49]RealReform at earthlink.net

>         15. [18][50] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>         16. [19] <mailto:[51]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[51]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>         17. [20][52] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>         18. [21] <mailto:[53]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[53]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>         19. [22] <mailto:[54]starchild at lp.org> mailto:[54]starchild at lp.org

>         20. [23] <mailto:[55]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[55]RealReform at earthlink.net

>         21. [24][56] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>         22. [25] <mailto:[57]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[57]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>         23. [26][58] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>         24. [27] <mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>         25. [28][60] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>         26. [29] <mailto:[61]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[61]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>         27. [30][62] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>         28. [31] <mailto:[63]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[63]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>         29. [32] <mailto:[64]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[64]RealReform at earthlink.net

>         30. [33][65] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>         31. [34] <mailto:[66]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[66]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>         32. [35][67] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>         33. [36] <mailto:[68]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[68]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>         34. [37] <mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

>         35. [38][70] <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
http://www.lpcolorado.org/

>         36. [39] <mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

>         37. [40][72] <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
http://www.lpcolorado.org/

>     References

>        1.  <mailto:[73]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[73]RealReform at earthlink.net

>        2.  <mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org> mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org

>        3.  <mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org> mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org

>        4. [76] <http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_>
http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_

>     Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2

>        5.  <mailto:[77]starchild at lp.org> mailto:[77]starchild at lp.org

>        6.  <mailto:[78]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[78]RealReform at earthlink.net

>        7.  <mailto:[79]starchild at lp.org> mailto:[79]starchild at lp.org

>        8.  <mailto:[80]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[80]RealReform at earthlink.net

>        9. [81] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>       10.  <mailto:[82]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[82]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>       11. [83] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>       12.  <mailto:[84]VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:[84]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>       13. [85] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>       14.  <mailto:[86]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[86]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>       15. [87] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>       16.  <mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>       17.  <mailto:[89]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[89]RealReform at earthlink.net

>       18. [90] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>       19.  <mailto:[91]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[91]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>       20. [92] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>       21.  <mailto:[93]VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:[93]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>       22.  <mailto:[94]starchild at lp.org> mailto:[94]starchild at lp.org

>       23.  <mailto:[95]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[95]RealReform at earthlink.net

>       24. [96] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>       25.  <mailto:[97]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[97]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>       26. [98] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>       27.  <mailto:[99]VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:[99]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>       28. [100] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>       29.  <mailto:[101]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[101]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>       30. [102] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>       31.  <mailto:[103]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[103]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>       32.  <mailto:[104]RealReform at earthlink.net>
mailto:[104]RealReform at earthlink.net

>       33. [105] <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>       34.  <mailto:[106]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
mailto:[106]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>       35. [107] <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>       36.  <mailto:[108]VoteVohra at gmail.com>
mailto:[108]VoteVohra at gmail.com

>       37.  <mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

>       38. [110] <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> http://www.lpcolorado.org/

>       39.  <mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

>       40. [112] <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> http://www.lpcolorado.org/

> 

>   --

>   --

>   In Liberty,

>   Caryn Ann Harlos

>   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,

>   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)

>   - [113]Caryn.Ann.  <mailto:Harlos at LP.org> Harlos at LP.org

>   Communications Director, [114]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:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>   2.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>   3.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>   4.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>   5.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>   6.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>   7.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>   8.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>   9.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  10.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  11.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  12.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  13.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  14.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  15.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  16.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  17.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  18.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  19.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  20.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>  21.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  22.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  23.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  24.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  25.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  26.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  27.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  28.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  29.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  30.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  31.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  32.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  33.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  34.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  35.  <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> http://www.lpcolorado.org/

>  36.  <http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2>
http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2

>  37.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>  38.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  39.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>  40.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  41.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  42.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  43.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  44.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  45.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  46.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  47.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  48.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  49.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  50.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  51.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  52.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  53.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  54.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>  55.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  56.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  57.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  58.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  59.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  60.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  61.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  62.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  63.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  64.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  65.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  66.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  67.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  68.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  69.  <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

>  70.  <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> http://www.lpcolorado.org/

>  71.  <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

>  72.  <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> http://www.lpcolorado.org/

>  73.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  74.  <mailto:Harlos at LP.org> mailto:Harlos at LP.org

>  75.  <mailto:Harlos at LP.org> mailto:Harlos at LP.org

>  76.  <http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2>
http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2

>  77.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>  78.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  79.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>  80.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  81.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  82.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  83.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  84.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  85.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  86.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  87.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  88.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  89.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  90.  <http://mewe.com/> http://mewe.com/

>  91.  <mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org> mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  92.  <http://www.VoteVohra.com/> http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  93.  <mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com> mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

>  94.  <mailto:starchild at lp.org> mailto:starchild at lp.org

>  95.  <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

>  96. http://mewe.com/

>  97. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

>  98. http://www.VoteVohra.com/

>  99. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

> 100. http://mewe.com/

> 101. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

> 102. http://www.VoteVohra.com/

> 103. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

> 104. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

> 105. http://mewe.com/

> 106. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

> 107. http://www.VoteVohra.com/

> 108. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

> 109. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

> 110. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

> 111. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

> 112. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

> 113. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

> 114. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

 

-------------- next part --------------
   The Libertarian Party was born from the radical ideas introduced by Ayn
   Rand. She was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians, perhaps
   because she thought they were stealing her ideas and misinterpreting
   them. And interpret them, they did. Rand absolutely nailed the moral
   justification for reason, rational self-interest, and laissez faire
   capitalism. Rand was a Minarchist and perhaps a mild chauvinist. She
   suggested that top-down leaders should be men, not women. The radicals
   that created the LP built the party and Statement of Principles by
   taking Rand's admirable intellectual process a step further. They had
   the temerity and courage to examine the moral justification for
   government, or lack thereof. Make no mistake, the LP was born of
   radical, controversial ideas expressed with passion that grew the
   movement exponentially based largely on Rand's ideas that filled the
   intellectual vacuum that existed prior to the release of ‘Atlas
   Shrugged’.


   As many intellectual movements do, at least at the top-down political
   level, the Libertarian Party gradually moved away from its radical
   roots, ostensibly to avoid scaring off voters. Then along came Dr. Ron
   Paul. His radical interpretation of what was wrong with government and
   specific remedies reinvigorated the LP and generated a huge following,
   especially among the young. Many Libertarians, both radicals and
   moderates, that were inspired by both Ayn Rand and Dr. Ron Paul,
   disagree with specific points in Rand’s and Dr. Paul’s Libertarian
   world views, particularly on the issue of Minarchism versus
   Voluntaryism.


   Our specific ideological disagreements, however, cannot obscure the
   fact that radical, controversial ideas, expressed passionately by
   inspirational leaders, such and Rand and Dr. Paul, were and will
   continue to be the driving force that sustains the broader Libertarian
   movement. The question is whether the political arm of the movement,
   the Libertarian Party, will follow suit, inspire others with our
   intellectual courage, and lead by example with new and controversial
   ideas. Or will we apologize to voters for our principles and gradually
   drift toward the fate of the old parties that blatantly appease voters
   to win hollow political victories really aimed at gaining authority
   over others.
   Who among us will have the intellectual foresight, creativity, courage,
   and passion necessary to introduce new and controversial ideas that
   will inspire non-Libertarians to vote for Libertarian candidates, win
   meaningful elections at all levels to obtain regulatory relief, and
   upsize the voluntary market sector while downsizing the coercive
   statist sector? Who among us will be the next Ayn Rand or Dr. Ron Paul
   to reinvigorate and re-radicalize the Libertarian Party in our quest
   for freedom, nothing more, nothing less, for all people?


   -----Original Message-----
   From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of
   Starchild
   Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:55 AM
   To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin
   Vohra



   Caryn Ann,


                   No worries about not being able to take my call, I know
   you do an incredible amount of work for the party and certainly don't
   begrudge you your family time. And I appreciate your kind words about
   my creativity and writing ability. I think the latter can be rather
   hit-or-miss – I don't always feel particularly articulate, and
   sometimes I can just be lazy or sloppy. Your essay below is very well
   written by the way, even though the tone is informal.


                   I'm not aware of ContraPoints, although I do consume a
   wide variety of media from different viewpoints both left and right as
   well as libertarian, as I agree it's good to be familiar with the
   arguments for their respective brands of statism. Will try to check
   that out.


                   I can look at pages on the "F" site now, if someone
   sends me a link, I just can't post there without an account. Aside from
   my desire not to contribute to the problem of society entrusting
   certain companies with too much power, the problem with creating a
   dummy account on that site in order to see what Libertarians are saying
   there is that people would naturally want to know who I am before
   friending me, and that process of getting into everybody's friend
   networks to see the conversations would naturally take some time.
   Meanwhile, as it became commonly known among members of our community
   that Account X was me under a different name, it seems inevitable that
   someone not wanting my voice there for whatever reason(s) would
   anonymously report me and get it shut down.



   > ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==

   >   Then you conceded my point.



                   You seem to be under the impression that I was trying
   to say it was designed as a litmus test. That's not what I was trying
   to say. I was recognizing that it IS a kind of litmus test, but that we
   could use a better one.



   >   He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.
   That is the charitable reading. Or you are saying he passive
   aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies.


                   I think there's a difference between walking back
   specific phrasing that caused offense, and disavowing the underlying
   message that readers would naturally get from a post, which I'm not
   aware of him doing until now.


                   But to get to the heart of this. While there are
   various individual points of your argument with which I am in
   agreement, the overall caricature you paint of Arvin just doesn't
   square with the observations of my own senses – the talk of "mind
   games", "gaslighting", "bad actors", "trolls", "edgelords" (this sounds
   like something out of a sci-fi novel!), posts that "ooze with glee",
   "enjoy(ing) what (he) put(s) others through", etc. – none of this
   accords with my personal sense of the individual I've come to know
   during two terms on the LNC.


                   I'm not saying YOU are trying to "gaslight" us; I don't
   doubt your sincerity. But take a step back and think about the kind of
   person that Arvin would have to be, in order for all the stuff you're
   saying about him to be true, and (for everyone) ask yourselves whether
   that's really the same person we've known on this committee.


   Love & Liberty,


                                      ((( starchild )))

   At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                           [1]RealReform at earthlink.net

                                   (415) 625-FREE

                                     @StarchildSF



   On Apr 4, 2018, at 12:12 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:


   >   Starchild, we are not going to change each other's minds.  I could
   not

   >   take your calls as I was recording live for the LP.  Also honestly,
   I

   >   am not sacrificing any more family time for Arvin.  Any time I do
   will

   >   be getting on the phone with members who now think the LP is not
   for

   >   them - that non-edgelords need not apply.  Yes, I get those calls.

   >   ==Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". ...When
   you

   >   refer to

   >      "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking

   >   about?==

   >   How members are taking it.  On Facebeast.

   >   ==   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.==

   >   Starchild at this point it is incumbent on you to get a dummy
   account

   >   and research and see for yourself.

   >   ==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).===

   >   That is what citing is.  And it was rejected as not enough THEN, so

   >   censure, in which the next step is removal. That is the progression
   of

   >   professional discipline.

   >   ==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).===

   >   First Starchild, I think you may be aware of the YouTuber

   >   ContraPoints.  Excellent liberal commentator for people to get out
   of

   >   the Milo echo chamber and hear good liberal defenses.  I don't
   agree

   >   with her, but I respect her immensely.  She talks about the
   difficulty

   >   of dealing with ethno nationalists - who say all the fashy things
   but

   >   then deny it.  There comes a point where it is a body of evidence.
   The

   >   analogy here is to how gaslighting works NOT any idea that anyone
   here

   >   is fashy (OBVIOUSLY NO ONE HERE IS) - just showing how these things

   >   work and how Libertarians are often hoodwinked.  I can send you the

   >   link to her video - it is fantastic, and I think you would love her
   as

   >   a person.  She reminds me of you with her creative genius. Back to

   >   Arvin, It was more than ill-advised, it was inexcusable for a
   leader of

   >   the LP.  Just like it would be inexcusable for a leader of the ADL
   to

   >   make a "get into the ovens" "joke."  Apologies and alleged
   disavowing

   >   (many many people do not believe it because again, he goes on to
   talk

   >   about WHEN it is acceptable in the same sentence - taking away any

   >   genuineness or utility of any disavowal and is why I don't buy his

   >   later disavowal either - I just don't.  I'm a wise old bird when it

   >   comes to these mind games) do not make everything okay.  This is

   >   repeated behaviour and it is enough.  I was once in an abusive

   >   marriage.  Yes he apologized.  Many times.  But there came a time
   when

   >   it was enough.  And my ex genuinely wanted to do better (or
   convinced

   >   me he did) - Arvin has promised us he will be worse.  His words
   ring

   >   hollow particularly when coupled with a call to defend taking up
   arms

   >   and lethal force.

   >   ==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.===

   >   He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.

   >   That is the charitable reading.  Or you are saying he passive

   >   aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies.  He is

   >   standing by this basic position too - it is not very utilitarian to

   >   shoot up school boards and to HIM it may not be proportional - but
   you

   >   know, they are the enemy and their collaborators.  You simply have
   to

   >   read carefully.  Its in the very post here - why do you think two

   >   people changed to YES - AFTER reading his "defense."  Because it
   read

   >   like a fertilizer bomb.  Our words have impact.  I watched some

   >   specials on what drove McVeigh to his horrific act - mixing bad

   >   government with reckless rhetoric and a healthy dose of nuttiness
   and a

   >   big kaboom comes out.  Free speech is not consequenceless speech.
   That

   >   girl who goaded her male friend over text to just kill himself and
   he

   >   did - she didn't kill him.  He still had agency.  It is a danger of

   >   free speech, but it doesn't make her speech noble or good.  Our
   words -

   >   as leaders - have influence.  We took these positions knowing that.

   >   Libertarians believe in responsibility.  Part of that
   responsibility is

   >   that you don't as a leader in the third largest political party in
   the

   >   US in a politically violent time, OVER THE BODIES OF DEAD TEENS,
   "joke"

   >   about murdering school board officials - when we run school board

   >   officials!!!  By Arvin's logic, we are enemy collaborators.  Many

   >   anarchists of his POV think so.  This anarchist does not.

   >   ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==

   >   Then you conceded my point.  It was put in place as a barrier, a

   >   protection, to OUR MEMBERS.  Which our Vice Chair blithely "joked

   >   away."  Not acceptable. Not okay.  And another note ends up in many

   >   members files due to Arvin.  Its all fun and games until shit gets

   >   real. He either was so obtuse and tone deaf to make such an

   >   inappropriate "joke" (coupled with his past inappropriate comments

   >   about preferring that little girls get impregnated by much older
   men

   >   with jobs rather than an equally confused kid) OR he meant it.  OR

   >   potentially a combination of both.  "Jokes" are often "funny" to
   the

   >   people who make them because there is some small grain of truth in
   them

   >   to the maker and to the audience.  We laugh at inappropriate

   >   stereotypes because there ARE some people like that (the problem is

   >   making a whole GROUP like that and making neutral characteristics
   to be

   >   malignant or bad when it is just people being people).  To wit,
   there

   >   are a lot of radical leftist feminists with pink hair.  I am not
   one of

   >   them. But people laugh when that joke is made towards me.  It is
   funny

   >   because here is some truth. And then I get an opportunity to show
   how

   >   stupid collectivization is.  What kernel of truth did Arvin find SO

   >   FUNNY?  That he juxtaposed it with the murder of children!?:!  As a

   >   political leader?????  There are people who make "rape jokes."  I

   >   question what in the person exists for them to even consider that a

   >   "joke" unless it was to show some underlying truth through dark
   evil.

   >   What underlying truth is there in this?  Not to mention that THIS
   IS A

   >   PATTERN.  Arvin has had for months - quite seriously - made posts
   that

   >   follow the pattern of Bad Idea: XXXX, Good Idea: XXXXX or more

   >   frequently Bad Idea XXXX, Worse Idea XXXXX.  So he then goes and
   says

   >   Bad Idea school shootings.  Good Idea School Board Shootings, and
   no

   >   everyone is supposed to magically know that THIS one was not
   serious.

   >   That he broke character.  (it also troubles me that he admits he

   >   wouldn't say that on FB but WeMe (or whatever silly name it is) is

   >   edgier so its all okay.....   so perhaps helicopter ride jokes are
   also

   >   okay, you just gotta be down with the Hoppe dudes to make them).

   >   Why do we find it so ironic when the fundamentalist theocrat who
   rails

   >   against gay people is found in bed with another of the same sex.
   Not

   >   because we think he should not have the right or any moral judgment

   >   about the intimate act.  We rightly note the hypocrisy of a person
   who

   >   is part of a movement that condemns others for such things doing
   such

   >   things.  We are a movement built on PEACE and non-initiation of
   force.

   >   To have one of our leaders make a joke out of our cardinal
   principle

   >   tickles the same sense of wrongness.  Mother Theresa could get away

   >   with a nun joke.  She couldn't get away with a joke about starving

   >   Indian children, even if she apologized.  That is not thought
   police.

   >   That is not unLibertarian.  It is sheer meritocracy.

   >   There are no words I can explain this better with Starchild.  You
   are

   >   brilliant and can out-write me on any day of the week and twice on

   >   Sunday.  But you are off base here, and I think lost in a
   Libertopia

   >   where there are not bad actors and trolls and destructive edgelords

   >   that act that way because they enjoy what they put others through.
   Our

   >   failure to see and deal with is evidence that dangerous sociopaths
   (NO,

   >   that is not what I am saying is going on here) would have a field
   day

   >   in "our world" because we would buy their silver-tongued

   >   "explanations."  We have got the gentle as doves part down pat.  We

   >   need to brush up on the wise as serpents part.

   >   I'm done.  I have spilled my ration of digital ink.

   >   What is even worse about what Arvin has done - and his posts over
   it

   >   ooze with glee - he is fracturing us with all the zeal of the High

   >   Septon -- the Party will not be pure until she is stripped and
   paraded

   >   through the streets in atonement for our sins of a ticket that
   didn't

   >   always stick to libertarian principles.  That isn't what he was
   elected

   >   to do.  He did have recourse as Vice Chair - he could have moved to

   >   disqualify them.  He did not.  He can resign and not have the
   weight of

   >   this responsibility if he wishes.  Life involves choices, and we
   chose

   >   these roles and responsibilities.

   >   This is a cumulative case of which the "lets murder the school
   board"

   >   "joke" is just the latest.  He was censured.  That is a
   probationary

   >   warning. He didn't take heed and picked the one thing that holds us

   >   together - the membership pledge of non-aggression - as the butt of
   his

   >   "joke" built on the youthful victims who woke up that day wondering

   >   about how much homework they would have or if their crush was still
   mad

   >   at them - not contemplating that those same bodies carefully
   dressed

   >   and ready would within hours be cold and dead and the only clothing

   >   that would matter would be the attire they would be buried in.

   >   Let me play the Septa for a moment and say.... "shame."

   >

   >   On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Starchild <[1][2]starchild at lp.org>
   wrote:

   >

   >        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][2][3]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >                                           (415) 625-FREE

   >                                              @StarchildSF

   >          On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild

   >     <[2][3][4]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][4][5]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][5][6]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][6]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][7]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][8][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][9][8]www.VoteVohra.com

   >                [5][6][9][10][9]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >                (301) 320-3634

   >              References

   >                  1. [2][7][10][11][10]http://mewe.com/

   >                  2. [3][11]mailto:[8][11][12]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >                  3. [12]tel:317-850-0726

   >                  4. [4][9][12][13][13]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >                  5. [5][14]mailto:[10][13][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >             References

   >                1. [15]mailto:[11][14][15]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >                2. [12][15][16][16]http://mewe.com/

   >                3. [17]mailto:[13][16][17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >              4. [14][17][18][18]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >              5. [19]mailto:[15][18][19]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][20]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. [21]mailto:[19][20]starchild at lp.org

   >           2. [22]mailto:[20][21]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >           3. [21][22][23]http://mewe.com/

   >           4. [24]mailto:[22][23]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >           5. [23][24][25]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >           6. [26]mailto:[24][25]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >           7. [25][26][27]http://mewe.com/

   >           8. [28]mailto:[26][27]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >           9. [27][28][29]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >          10. [30]mailto:[28][29]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >          11. [31]mailto:[29][30]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >          12. [30][31][32]http://mewe.com/

   >          13. [33]mailto:[31][32]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >          14. [32][33][34]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >          15. [35]mailto:[33][34]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >          16. [36]mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   >          17. [35][35][37]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][38]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][36][39]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#

   >     cite_note-2

   >          2. [5][40]mailto:[37]starchild at lp.org

   >          3. [6][41]mailto:[38]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >          4. [7][42]mailto:[39]starchild at lp.org

   >          5. [8][43]mailto:[40]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >          6. [9][41][44]http://mewe.com/

   >          7. [10][45]mailto:[42]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >          8. [11][43][46]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >          9. [12][47]mailto:[44]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >         10. [13][45][48]http://mewe.com/

   >         11. [14][49]mailto:[46]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >         12. [15][47][50]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >         13. [16][51]mailto:[48]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >         14. [17][52]mailto:[49]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >         15. [18][50][53]http://mewe.com/

   >         16. [19][54]mailto:[51]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >         17. [20][52][55]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >         18. [21][56]mailto:[53]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >         19. [22][57]mailto:[54]starchild at lp.org

   >         20. [23][58]mailto:[55]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >         21. [24][56][59]http://mewe.com/

   >         22. [25][60]mailto:[57]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >         23. [26][58][61]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >         24. [27][62]mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >         25. [28][60][63]http://mewe.com/

   >         26. [29][64]mailto:[61]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >         27. [30][62][65]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >         28. [31][66]mailto:[63]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >         29. [32][67]mailto:[64]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >         30. [33][65][68]http://mewe.com/

   >         31. [34][69]mailto:[66]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >         32. [35][67][70]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >         33. [36][71]mailto:[68]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >         34. [37][72]mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   >         35. [38][70][73]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   >         36. [39][74]mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   >         37. [40][72][75]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   >     References

   >        1. [76]mailto:[73]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >        2. [77]mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org

   >        3. [78]mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org

   >        4. [76][79]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_

   >     Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2

   >        5. [80]mailto:[77]starchild at lp.org

   >        6. [81]mailto:[78]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >        7. [82]mailto:[79]starchild at lp.org

   >        8. [83]mailto:[80]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >        9. [81][84]http://mewe.com/

   >       10. [85]mailto:[82]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >       11. [83][86]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >       12. [87]mailto:[84]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >       13. [85][88]http://mewe.com/

   >       14. [89]mailto:[86]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >       15. [87][90]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >       16. [91]mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >       17. [92]mailto:[89]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >       18. [90][93]http://mewe.com/

   >       19. [94]mailto:[91]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >       20. [92][95]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >       21. [96]mailto:[93]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >       22. [97]mailto:[94]starchild at lp.org

   >       23. [98]mailto:[95]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >       24. [96][99]http://mewe.com/

   >       25. [100]mailto:[97]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >       26. [98][101]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >       27. [102]mailto:[99]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >       28. [100][103]http://mewe.com/

   >       29. [104]mailto:[101]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >       30. [102][105]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >       31. [106]mailto:[103]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >       32. [107]mailto:[104]RealReform at earthlink.net

   >       33. [105][108]http://mewe.com/

   >       34. [109]mailto:[106]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >       35. [107][110]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >       36. [111]mailto:[108]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >       37. [112]mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   >       38. [110][113]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   >       39. [114]mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   >       40. [112][115]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   >

   >   --

   >   --

   >   In Liberty,

   >   Caryn Ann Harlos

   >   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,

   >   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
   Washington)

   >   - [113]Caryn.Ann. [116]Harlos at LP.org

   >   Communications Director, [114]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. [117]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >   2. [118]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >   3. [119]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >   4. [120]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >   5. [121]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >   6. [122]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >   7. [123]http://mewe.com/

   >   8. [124]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >   9. [125]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  10. [126]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  11. [127]http://mewe.com/

   >  12. [128]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  13. [129]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  14. [130]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  15. [131]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  16. [132]http://mewe.com/

   >  17. [133]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  18. [134]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  19. [135]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  20. [136]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >  21. [137]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  22. [138]http://mewe.com/

   >  23. [139]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  24. [140]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  25. [141]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  26. [142]http://mewe.com/

   >  27. [143]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  28. [144]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  29. [145]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  30. [146]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  31. [147]http://mewe.com/

   >  32. [148]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  33. [149]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  34. [150]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  35. [151]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   >  36. [152]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2

   >  37. [153]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >  38. [154]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  39. [155]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >  40. [156]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  41. [157]http://mewe.com/

   >  42. [158]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  43. [159]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  44. [160]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  45. [161]http://mewe.com/

   >  46. [162]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  47. [163]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  48. [164]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  49. [165]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  50. [166]http://mewe.com/

   >  51. [167]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  52. [168]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  53. [169]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  54. [170]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >  55. [171]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  56. [172]http://mewe.com/

   >  57. [173]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  58. [174]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  59. [175]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  60. [176]http://mewe.com/

   >  61. [177]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  62. [178]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  63. [179]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  64. [180]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  65. [181]http://mewe.com/

   >  66. [182]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  67. [183]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  68. [184]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  69. [185]mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   >  70. [186]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   >  71. [187]mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   >  72. [188]http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   >  73. [189]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  74. [190]mailto:Harlos at LP.org

   >  75. [191]mailto:Harlos at LP.org

   >  76. [192]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2

   >  77. [193]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >  78. [194]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  79. [195]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >  80. [196]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  81. [197]http://mewe.com/

   >  82. [198]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  83. [199]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  84. [200]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  85. [201]http://mewe.com/

   >  86. [202]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  87. [203]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  88. [204]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  89. [205]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  90. [206]http://mewe.com/

   >  91. [207]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  92. [208]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  93. [209]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   >  94. [210]mailto:starchild at lp.org

   >  95. [211]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   >  96. http://mewe.com/

   >  97. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   >  98. http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   >  99. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   > 100. http://mewe.com/

   > 101. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   > 102. http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   > 103. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   > 104. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net

   > 105. http://mewe.com/

   > 106. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org

   > 107. http://www.VoteVohra.com/

   > 108. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com

   > 109. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   > 110. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   > 111. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   > 112. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

   > 113. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org

   > 114. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

References

   1. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
   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. mailto:starchild at lp.org
   7. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
   8. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   9. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  10. http://mewe.com/
  11. mailto:[8][11][12]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  12. tel:317-850-0726
  13. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  14. mailto:[10][13][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  15. mailto:[11][14][15]RealReform at earthlink.net
  16. http://mewe.com/
  17. mailto:[13][16][17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  18. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  19. mailto:[15][18][19]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  20. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
  21. mailto:[19][20]starchild at lp.org
  22. mailto:[20][21]RealReform at earthlink.net
  23. http://mewe.com/
  24. mailto:[22][23]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  25. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  26. mailto:[24][25]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  27. http://mewe.com/
  28. mailto:[26][27]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  29. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  30. mailto:[28][29]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  31. mailto:[29][30]RealReform at earthlink.net
  32. http://mewe.com/
  33. mailto:[31][32]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  34. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  35. mailto:[33][34]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  36. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  38. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
  39. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge
  40. mailto:[37]starchild at lp.org
  41. mailto:[38]RealReform at earthlink.net
  42. mailto:[39]starchild at lp.org
  43. mailto:[40]RealReform at earthlink.net
  44. http://mewe.com/
  45. mailto:[42]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  46. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  47. mailto:[44]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  48. http://mewe.com/
  49. mailto:[46]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  50. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  51. mailto:[48]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  52. mailto:[49]RealReform at earthlink.net
  53. http://mewe.com/
  54. mailto:[51]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  55. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  56. mailto:[53]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  57. mailto:[54]starchild at lp.org
  58. mailto:[55]RealReform at earthlink.net
  59. http://mewe.com/
  60. mailto:[57]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  61. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  62. mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  63. http://mewe.com/
  64. mailto:[61]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  65. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  66. mailto:[63]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  67. mailto:[64]RealReform at earthlink.net
  68. http://mewe.com/
  69. mailto:[66]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  70. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  71. mailto:[68]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  72. mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  73. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  74. mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  75. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
  76. mailto:[73]RealReform at earthlink.net
  77. mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org
  78. mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org
  79. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_
  80. mailto:[77]starchild at lp.org
  81. mailto:[78]RealReform at earthlink.net
  82. mailto:[79]starchild at lp.org
  83. mailto:[80]RealReform at earthlink.net
  84. http://mewe.com/
  85. mailto:[82]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  86. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  87. mailto:[84]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  88. http://mewe.com/
  89. mailto:[86]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  90. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  91. mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  92. mailto:[89]RealReform at earthlink.net
  93. http://mewe.com/
  94. mailto:[91]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
  95. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  96. mailto:[93]VoteVohra at gmail.com
  97. mailto:[94]starchild at lp.org
  98. mailto:[95]RealReform at earthlink.net
  99. http://mewe.com/
 100. mailto:[97]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 101. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 102. mailto:[99]VoteVohra at gmail.com
 103. http://mewe.com/
 104. mailto:[101]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 105. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 106. mailto:[103]VoteVohra at gmail.com
 107. mailto:[104]RealReform at earthlink.net
 108. http://mewe.com/
 109. mailto:[106]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 110. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 111. mailto:[108]VoteVohra at gmail.com
 112. mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
 113. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 114. mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
 115. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 116. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
 117. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 118. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 119. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 120. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 121. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 122. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 123. http://mewe.com/
 124. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 125. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 126. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 127. http://mewe.com/
 128. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 129. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 130. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 131. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 132. http://mewe.com/
 133. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 134. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 135. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 136. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 137. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 138. http://mewe.com/
 139. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 140. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 141. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 142. http://mewe.com/
 143. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 144. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 145. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 146. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 147. http://mewe.com/
 148. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 149. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 150. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 151. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 152. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
 153. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 154. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 155. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 156. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 157. http://mewe.com/
 158. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 159. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 160. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 161. http://mewe.com/
 162. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 163. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 164. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 165. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 166. http://mewe.com/
 167. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 168. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 169. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 170. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 171. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 172. http://mewe.com/
 173. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 174. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 175. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 176. http://mewe.com/
 177. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 178. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 179. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 180. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 181. http://mewe.com/
 182. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 183. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 184. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 185. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
 186. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 187. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
 188. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
 189. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 190. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
 191. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
 192. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
 193. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 194. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 195. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 196. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 197. http://mewe.com/
 198. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 199. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 200. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 201. http://mewe.com/
 202. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 203. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 204. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 205. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
 206. http://mewe.com/
 207. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
 208. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
 209. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
 210. mailto:starchild at lp.org
 211. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list