[Lnc-business] Taking the discussion off the voting thread

Thu Apr 5 21:32:34 EDT 2018

Arvin,

With respect, this is not about what anyone else says, it is what YOU have said and continue to say.  I saw your video.  The apology was anything but.  You are an Ivy League graduate, you are the vice chair of the third largest political party in the nation.  I do not believe that there is anything you have ever said that was not calculated to elicit the exact response you have received.  I don't believe it, because you have stated that this was the response you wanted.  While not a perfect analogy, it is along the same lines as shouting BOMB in a crowded movie theater and saying sorry, that was a joke.  (after some people were trampled as people were running to get out of the building)

Every time you write one of these things and it becomes tossed around, it becomes very divisive.  On one side, we have some considering using threats of violence to have the convention cancelled...  OVER THIS.  We have seen others abandoning the party leaving candidates without the volunteers they had just weeks ago.  I agree with the sentiment that people need to have a bit of a thick skin when being part of this organization, that does NOT imply that I agree with the idea deliberately trying to chase people away (which is what too many of your pieces have been doing.)

People come to Libertarianism in their own way, from their own direction, and in their own time.  There is no single day that people all of the sudden wake up and say I have a thick skin because I am an ANCAP!

Regardless of anything else, we do not use violence, the threats of violence, or "jokes" about violence to further our political goals.  It is true, we need government out of our lives.  If you believe your way is the best way, go and make it happen.  I disagree with your tactics, your language, and your messaging.  It is not what a political party should be promoting.  Your message packaging does not represent what I believe, and I know that there are many who agree with me.  I know you will not stop, it has been asked of you before, you have clearly said that no, you will not stop.

This is the last I will write on the subject.  We have all wasted too much time and lost too much ground with these incidents.   

Sincerely,

Steve Scheetz

-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Arvin Vohra
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:43 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: [Lnc-business] Taking the discussion off the voting thread

Hi all,

It seems quite surreal to be arguing that guns are specifically there to defend us against a tyrannical government. I probably have a far below average number of guns on the LNC (zero), and I follow a personal code of avoiding violence, even when it is morally justified or state sponsored.

And yet, this is not about my views, but about the Libertarian views. It has been argued that the view that guns are there to oppose government tyranny is not a Libertarian view, is a violation of the NAP, etc. But this is not some far extreme opinion shared only by me. It is a common view among Libertarians and even conservatives - including those who have the ear of the mainstream that many of you so desperately crave. I've included a few here from minarchist and conservative sources, not the anarchist sources that tend to be more aggressive.

If you don't believe that Libertarians view guns as weapons to be used in defense against tyranny, here's what a two minute google search turns up:

According to the Libertarian Party of North Carolina:  "The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution after overthrowing their own tyrannical government. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to insure that the fledgling government of these United States would not devolve into the totalitarianism they had just defeated. The Framers gave the people the ability to force the new government to abide by the Constitution." (
http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control)

According to Rand Paul: "Some citizens are holding out hope that the upcoming elections will better things. We'll wait and see. Lots of us believe that maybe that's an unreliable considering that the Fabian progressive socialists have been chipping at our foundations for well over
100 years. Regardless, the founders made sure we had Plan B: the Second Amendment." ( https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/
)

Acording to the Future of Freedom Foundation: "In other words, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with shooting deer. It has everything to do with defending one’s self and others from people who are initiating force against innocent people, such as robbers, murderers, rapists, torturers, and tyrants (and their agents)."

According to the Daily Wire, responding to Rolling Stone: " We Americans don’t want to keep our guns so we can overthrow the government; we want to keep our guns so we never have to."  ( https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-happen-and-yes-armed-tyler-dahnke
)

According to the National Review: " But a tyranny, an invader, or a pretender-government are more effectively resisted with guns.
Sometimes people put Schermer’s argument more baldly. They ask something like this: “Do you really think Bubba in camo gear hiding in the forest is going to take on the U.S. military? The U.S. military has nuclear weapons!”" ( https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citizenry-vs-government-force-history/
)

According to the Libertarian Republic: "Therefore, if the government were to function as the sole executor of force, minority populations would be severely at risk. It is widely assumed that the United States is a democracy, for precisely this reasoning, we are not; we are a representative republic. Second, and of most pertinence, military might was restricted to the ruling party;" (
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/)

According to Ted Cruz: " “The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty,” ( https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-government-tyranny
)

And if this is about appealing to the mainstream, here's what Rasmussen had to say a few years ago:  "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny.... Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view."

I've argued that we are becoming, as a movement, culturally democrats. We insist that people can't stop themselves from having 9 kids on welfare, or that it is their natural right to do so, or that if it wasn't for government, all those people with no economic skill to speak of would be instant millionaires, so they would be able to afford to have 50 kids, so government owes them stolen money because they kept themselves to 9. From what I've seen in this discussion, we've lost touch with even the most basic principles of supporting the Second Amendment. I find it quite striking that I am, somehow, the only person on the LNC who believes that the Second Amendment, and the natural gun rights it expresses, is for resisting government tyranny.

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian Party

--
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634