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

Sam Goldstein sam.goldstein at lp.org
Thu Apr 5 13:34:45 EDT 2018


Can you those of you engaged in endless debate please take it off the 
voting thread so better track can be kept of votes on this matter?

Thanks,


---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell

On 2018-04-05 11:51, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> I am serious.  Thanks for talking down to me though.
>    On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:43 AM <[1]david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:
> 
>      Get serious. I could draw you a picture to connect the obvious 
> dots,
>      but I am not into soundbite memes.
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Lnc-business <[2]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf 
> Of
>      Caryn Ann Harlos
>      Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:40 AM
>      To: Libertarian National Committee list 
> <[3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>      Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of
>      Arvin Vohra
>      How about political party leaders who argued on social media to 
> vote
>      for
>      candidates who advocated using force and theft to make sure there
>      was a
>      cake at every wedding?
>      Asking for a friend.
>      On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>      <[4]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>      wrote:
>      > **raises hand**
>      >
>      > I don't know what debate you are in but it doesn't appear to be
>      this one.
>      >
>      > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:11 AM, <[5]david.demarest at lp.org> 
> wrote:
>      >
>      >>    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 <[6]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On
>      Behalf Of
>      >>    Starchild
>      >>    Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:55 AM
>      >>    To: [7]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][8]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][9]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][10]RealReform at earthlink.net
>      >>
>      >>    >                                           (415) 625-FREE
>      >>
>      >>    >                                              @StarchildSF
>      >>
>      >>    >          On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
>      >>
>      >>    >     <[2][3][4][11]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][12]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][13]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][14]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
>      >
> 
>    --
> 
>    --
>    In Liberty,
>    Caryn Ann Harlos
>    Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>    Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, 
> Washington)
>    - [15]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>    Communications Director, [16]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:david.demarest at lp.org
>    2. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>    3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>    5. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
>    6. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>    7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    8. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>    9. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>   10. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>   11. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>   12. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>   13. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>   14. http://mewe.com/
>   15. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>   16. http://www.lpcolorado.org/



More information about the Lnc-business mailing list