[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