[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
Daniel Hayes
daniel.hayes at lp.org
Thu Apr 5 14:58:28 EDT 2018
We all everybody..
D
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 5, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein at lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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