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

Arvin Vohra votevohra at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 15:12:37 EDT 2018


Mr. Nekhalia,

I can certainly agree with the last point: our job is to use peaceful means
to discourage violent actions. I think most people are moral, currently
most people are facing a large amount of cognitive dissonance, and that if
we can spread the understanding that force is morally wrong even if the
state says it's okay.

-Arvin Vohra

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:03 PM, <steven.nekhaila at lp.org> wrote:

> Arvin,
>
> I think it goes without saying that the proper use of the Second Amendment
> is to give the citizenry the ability to fight back against a threat, both
> foreign and domestic, including ones own government. It is stated so
> explicitly in the Federalist papers, and the violent revolution against the
> British should be evidence enough as to what the intentions were. I don't
> recall anyone explicitly stating that the Second Amendment is to put food
> on the table, it sounds like the argument you are stating is concerning
> acts of aggression. Are all actions of the State acts of aggression, yes.
> If a robber steals your money and gives it to his wife and kids to buy
> food, do you have a right to use violence against the robbers wife and
> kids? I would say it is an inappropriate reaction. Even if the wife and
> kids were to support the actions of the thieving, perhaps even violent
> husband/father, I do not believe that justifies lethal force against the
> recipients. Benefiting from force DOES make them morally culpable, even
> civilly liable. But I think the greater extent of this argument you are
> trying to make, Arvin, is at what point is state funding considered
> aggression, my answer is as long as it is funded through aggression. That
> includes just about everything, perhaps to a lesser extent when it is
> funded through inflation and borrowing, but that is a compulsorily imposed
> monetary system. And that does indeed make public education morally
> abhorrent. When you made a joke concerning hunting government, I thought it
> was quite charming, for the reason that the Second Amendment is often
> excused as a protection for hunting, not resistance to government tyranny.
> When you made your controversial joke about shooting school boards not
> schools, the hidden meaning was that at least one was justified or
> preferred. I took it as a purely ostentatious comment. I am not offended by
> a joke, however, I do think the fear of this body is in the best interest
> of the reputation of the Party. Although I believe the threat has been
> overstated and every effort of this body to squash dissent has been
> counter-intuitive and the equivalent of turning your joke into a pylon
> marquee sign for all to see and analyze, I do think the sentiment is at
> least easy to understand.
>
> As for your concerns Arvin, I believe force is force, and those who
> benefit, organize and call for force are as morally culpable as those who
> commit it. That is why we are here, to show them that they are wrong, to
> light up another way. Never stop fighting, the alternatives are a
> horrifying future and a dystopian present.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Steven Nekhaila
> Region 2 Alternate
>
> "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-04-05 07:43 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
>
>> 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." ([1]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."
>>    ([2]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/co
>> nstitutional
>>    -myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-go
>> vernment/241
>>    298/)
>>    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."
>>    ([3]https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-
>> tyranny-can-hap
>>    pen-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!”"
>>    ([4]https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-
>> amendment-armed-citiz
>>    enry-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;"
>>    ([5]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,”
>>    ([6]https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-
>> cruz-second-amendment-governme
>>
>>    nt-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
>>    [7]www.VoteVohra.com
>>    [8]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>    (301) 320-3634
>>
>> References
>>
>>    1. http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control
>>    2.
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constit
>> utional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-
>> threaten-government/241298/
>>    3.
>> https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-
>> can-happen-and-yes-armed-tyler-dahnke
>>    4.
>> https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-arme
>> d-citizenry-vs-government-force-history/
>>    5. https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/
>>    6.
>> https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-g
>> overnment-tyranny
>>    7. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>    8. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>


-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
   Mr. Nekhalia,
   I can certainly agree with the last point: our job is to use peaceful
   means to discourage violent actions. I think most people are moral,
   currently most people are facing a large amount of cognitive
   dissonance, and that if we can spread the understanding that force is
   morally wrong even if the state says it's okay.
   -Arvin Vohra

   On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:03 PM, <[1]steven.nekhaila at lp.org> wrote:

     Arvin,
     I think it goes without saying that the proper use of the Second
     Amendment is to give the citizenry the ability to fight back against
     a threat, both foreign and domestic, including ones own government.
     It is stated so explicitly in the Federalist papers, and the violent
     revolution against the British should be evidence enough as to what
     the intentions were. I don't recall anyone explicitly stating that
     the Second Amendment is to put food on the table, it sounds like the
     argument you are stating is concerning acts of aggression. Are all
     actions of the State acts of aggression, yes. If a robber steals
     your money and gives it to his wife and kids to buy food, do you
     have a right to use violence against the robbers wife and kids? I
     would say it is an inappropriate reaction. Even if the wife and kids
     were to support the actions of the thieving, perhaps even violent
     husband/father, I do not believe that justifies lethal force against
     the recipients. Benefiting from force DOES make them morally
     culpable, even civilly liable. But I think the greater extent of
     this argument you are trying to make, Arvin, is at what point is
     state funding considered aggression, my answer is as long as it is
     funded through aggression. That includes just about everything,
     perhaps to a lesser extent when it is funded through inflation and
     borrowing, but that is a compulsorily imposed monetary system. And
     that does indeed make public education morally abhorrent. When you
     made a joke concerning hunting government, I thought it was quite
     charming, for the reason that the Second Amendment is often excused
     as a protection for hunting, not resistance to government tyranny.
     When you made your controversial joke about shooting school boards
     not schools, the hidden meaning was that at least one was justified
     or preferred. I took it as a purely ostentatious comment. I am not
     offended by a joke, however, I do think the fear of this body is in
     the best interest of the reputation of the Party. Although I believe
     the threat has been overstated and every effort of this body to
     squash dissent has been counter-intuitive and the equivalent of
     turning your joke into a pylon marquee sign for all to see and
     analyze, I do think the sentiment is at least easy to understand.
     As for your concerns Arvin, I believe force is force, and those who
     benefit, organize and call for force are as morally culpable as
     those who commit it. That is why we are here, to show them that they
     are wrong, to light up another way. Never stop fighting, the
     alternatives are a horrifying future and a dystopian present.
     In Liberty,
     Steven Nekhaila
     Region 2 Alternate
     "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they
     do."

   On 2018-04-05 07:43 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:

   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." ([1][2]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."
        ([2][3]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/co
     nstitutional
        -myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-go
     vernment/241
        298/)
        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."
        ([3][4]https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-
     tyranny-can-hap
        pen-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!”"
        ([4][5]https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-
     amendment-armed-citiz
        enry-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;"
        ([5][6]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,”
        ([6][7]https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-
     cruz-second-amendment-governme

      nt-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

        [7][8]www.VoteVohra.com
        [8][9]VoteVohra at gmail.com
        (301) 320-3634
     References
        1. [10]http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control
        2.
     [11]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constit
     utional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-
     threaten-government/241298/
        3.
     [12]https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-
     can-happen-and-yes-armed-tyler-dahnke
        4.
     [13]https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-arme
     d-citizenry-vs-government-force-history/
        5. [14]https://thelibertarianrepublic
     .com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/
        6.
     [15]https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-g
     overnment-tyranny
        7. [16]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
        8. mailto:[17]VoteVohra at gmail.com

   --
   Arvin Vohra
   [18]www.VoteVohra.com
   [19]VoteVohra at gmail.com
   (301) 320-3634

References

   1. mailto:steven.nekhaila at lp.org
   2. http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control
   3. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional
   4. https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-hap
   5. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citiz
   6. https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/
   7. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-governme
   8. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   9. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  10. http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control
  11. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/
  12. https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-happen-and-yes-armed-tyler-dahnke
  13. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citizenry-vs-government-force-history/
  14. https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/
  15. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-government-tyranny
  16. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  17. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
  18. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
  19. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list