May 2017 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Message from the LPPA
by Trent Somes 22 May '17

22 May '17

Hello fellow LNC members, I have been asked by the LPPA Secretary to forward this attached message to you on their behalf. Please note this message is not on behalf of myself. *Trent Somes, III* Region 5 Alternate, Libertarian National Committee Founder, Westmoreland County Libertarians <http://fb.com/wclibertarians> National Chair, Libertarian Youth Caucus <http://fb.com/LYCaucus> Facebook <http://fb.com/trentsomes/> Twitter <http://twitter.com/TrentSomes/> Instagram <http://instagram.com/trentsomes/> Address <https://goo.gl/maps/gWqJw21CJZs> Cell: (412) 496 - 8552 Home: (412) 646 - 1872

1 0

Bylaws Committee
by Whitney Bilyeu 22 May '17

22 May '17

It has come to my attention that the Bylaws Committee will not be using the same level of transparency that the LNC uses for their e-mail discussions. I am well aware that certain committees deal with certain matters that are more sensitive, and require more confidentiality. However, I am not sure why the Bylaws Committee would need a closed format. I would like to hear the rationale for this. Thanks! Whitney Bilyeu Region 7 Representative

2 1

Resignation as Region 7 Alternate
by Danny Bedwell 22 May '17

22 May '17

Ladies and Gentlemen, It is with great sorrow and embarrassment that I must resign my position as Region 7 Alternate. I assure you it has nothing to do with something the LNC has or has not done. My reasons are totally personal and totally selfish. I just do not have the time to involve myself like the position warrants. Furthermore, I assure you that I will remain a staunch supporter of the Libertarian Party both in spirit, and in action. I will remain heavily involved in my State and County LP affiliates, and will continue to work towards liberty for all. It has been my honor to represent the affiliates in Region 7 at the LNC. This resignation will be effective at 12:01 am, May 24, 2017 In Liberty, Danny Bedwell

10 9

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
by David Demarest 22 May '17

22 May '17

No ~David Pratt Demarest On May 22, 2017 9:05 AM, "Whitney Bilyeu" <whitneycb76(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. > > Whitney > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Steven Nekhaila < > steven.nekhaila(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> In my capacity as a regional representative alternative, I vote Aye, >> pending Mr. Marsh's favor. >> >> In Liberty, >> >> Steven Nekhaila >> >> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes(a)icloud.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Starchild, >>> >>> You want this resolution to do things it was never intended to do. I >>> can't help you there. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On May 20, 2017, at 11:47 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I belatedly realized after sending that message that I should have asked >>> for the the intent of the *authors* (plural), not just Daniel. I'm not >>> insisting that any author make any particular interpretation, but being an >>> anarchist doesn't preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with >>> language they intend to be minarchist, and being a minarchist doesn't >>> preclude someone from co-authoring a resolution with language they intend >>> to be anarchist. >>> >>> In cases where the wording itself is unclear, I do feel intent matters. >>> If I felt otherwise then I would have to oppose the motion no matter what >>> you all say, since as written I think the public perception of the >>> resolution will tend to be that the language in question refers to the U.S. >>> government's military. >>> >>> But I see Daniel has just written that his intent was for "military" to >>> mean in this context what it evidently meant in the 1974 platform, i.e. not >>> necessarily the U.S. government's military. Do you and any other co-authors >>> agree? If so, I think it would be helpful to explicitly state your intent >>> in this regard in the resolution in order to minimize misunderstandings >>> that I expect will otherwise tend to occur, given the context, although >>> spreading the word in places where the resolution is discussed or published >>> can of course also help in this regard. >>> >>> Love & Liberty, >>> >>> ((( starchild ))) >>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee >>> RealReform(a)earthilnk.net >>> (415) 625-FREE >>> >>> >>> On May 20, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: >>> >>> Starchild, I helped author this resolution. Everyone must interpret as >>> they see fit but we are duty bound to interpret within the Accord framework >>> of the SoP which allows for diversity of interpretation. You can't insist >>> a minarchist make an anarchist interpretation. That is just as unjust as >>> the converse under the Accord. >>> >>> -Caryn Ann >>> >>> >>> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:49 PM Caryn Ann Harlos < >>> carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Daniel, pet peeve. It is Accord singular not plural. Just like the >>>> Book of Revelation is not Revelations. >>>> >>>> -Caryn Ann >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM Starchild <sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Daniel, >>>>> >>>>> If you as the maker of the motion will affirm that your use of the >>>>> phrase in this context is *not* a reference to the U.S. government's >>>>> military, but could include any military force or forces sufficient to >>>>> defend the United States against aggression, that would go a long way >>>>> toward allaying the concerns I expressed. >>>>> >>>>> Love & Liberty, >>>>> >>>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee >>>>> RealReform(a)earthilnk.net >>>>> (415) 625-FREE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 20, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Starchild. >>>>> >>>>> The first Wheras clause is taken STRAIGHT from the platform. A plank >>>>> that has existed in similar form dating back to the Dallas accords. >>>>> >>>>> *"3.1 National Defense* >>>>> We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the >>>>> United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid >>>>> entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the >>>>> world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Daniel Hayes >>>>> LNC At Large Member >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On May 20, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I *do* consider a military capacity to shoot down >>>>> missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United >>>>> States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as >>>>> North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an >>>>> air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. >>>>> Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at >>>>> present or in the near future seems remote. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over >>>>> half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/N >>>>> ews-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of- >>>>> defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal/ >>>>> ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against >>>>> such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to >>>>> me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city >>>>> on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as >>>>> being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – >>>>> unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately >>>>> allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to >>>>> stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White >>>>> House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0 >>>>> 1/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the >>>>> aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect >>>>> citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious >>>>> armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to >>>>> "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify >>>>> any particular source(s) of that aggression. *I would argue that both >>>>> the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that >>>>> poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government >>>>> itself!* >>>>> >>>>> For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to >>>>> endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. >>>>> I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally >>>>> opposed such a standing army. >>>>> >>>>> Explicit *Libertarian Party* support for the maintenance of such an >>>>> institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas >>>>> Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and >>>>> minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much >>>>> government we ideally want to see in existence, if any. >>>>> >>>>> It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government >>>>> standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – >>>>> although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such >>>>> language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most >>>>> respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations >>>>> which I think are *technically consistent *with the wording, although >>>>> probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind: >>>>> >>>>> • Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the >>>>> United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive >>>>> foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed >>>>> populace, the amount of military *sufficient* to defend the United >>>>> States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount >>>>> that we would be supporting if we pass the motion >>>>> >>>>> • The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the >>>>> United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent >>>>> militias, not to the U.S. government's military >>>>> >>>>> I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the >>>>> record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the >>>>> resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, *I >>>>> must oppose the motion as written and* *accordingly vote no*. >>>>> >>>>> On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first >>>>> "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of >>>>> the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the >>>>> circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words *"support >>>>> the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States >>>>> against aggression and"* can be dropped, then I would be inclined to >>>>> support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would >>>>> consider strong enough to warrant abstention. >>>>> >>>>> Love & Liberty, >>>>> >>>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee >>>>> RealReform(a)earthlink.net >>>>> (415) 625-FREE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We have an electronic mail ballot. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm >>>>> Pacific time.* >>>>> *Sponsor:* Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson >>>>> >>>>> *Motion:* >>>>> >>>>> Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend >>>>> the United States against aggression and believe that the United States >>>>> should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as >>>>> policeman for the world; >>>>> >>>>> Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and >>>>> recognize that many members of the military >>>>> were unjustly conscripted in the past; >>>>> >>>>> Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea >>>>> and/or goal of defending the United States >>>>> and, thereby, their property, families, and friends; >>>>> >>>>> Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many >>>>> well-meaning military service members for >>>>> purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved >>>>> them in foreign entanglements during attempts >>>>> to act as the world’s policeman; and >>>>> >>>>> Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to >>>>> relate, identify, and speak out on the ways >>>>> in which the United States military mission has been expanded and >>>>> corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense >>>>> against aggression; now, therefore, be it; >>>>> >>>>> Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such >>>>> unique and powerful voice to the libertarian >>>>> principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to >>>>> the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a >>>>> vital part of our membership. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Alicia >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "lncvotes" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "lncvotes" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-votes mailing list >>>>> Lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "lncvotes" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> *In Liberty,* >>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>>> Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> >>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> >>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> >>>> 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* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> *In Liberty,* >>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>> Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> >>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> >>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> >>> 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* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

2 1

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2017-11: Military Members
by Starchild 22 May '17

22 May '17

Personally, I do consider a military capacity to shoot down missiles and aircraft aimed at targets within the area known as the United States – e.g. a missile launch by the regime controlling the area known as North Korea – desirable. My strong preference however would be for such an air defense system to be independently maintained and voluntarily funded. Sadly, the chances of such an independent defense capacity existing at present or in the near future seems remote. On the other hand, despite a U.S. government military budget of over half a trillion dollars per year (per https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687… ), the odds that the U.S. government is or will be able to protect against such threats exacerbated by its own policies also seem alarmingly slim to me (particularly alarming from the vantage point of living in a major city on the west coast), given their track record that includes failures such as being unable to scramble fighter jets in time to stop the 9/11 attacks – unless one assumes those attacks were an "inside job" or were deliberately allowed to take place, neither of which possibilities I rule out – or to stop a drunken government employee from crash-landing a drone on the White House lawn (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html ). Nor, for that matter, has the aforementioned military spending done anything that I'm aware of to protect citizens, residents, and others in the United States from the most serious armed threat facing them – the resolution, after all, refers broadly to "defend(ing) the United States against aggression", and does not specify any particular source(s) of that aggression. I would argue that both the worst current aggressor against the United States, and the entity that poses the greatest future threat of aggression, is the U.S. government itself! For this reason, among others, the fact that the resolution appears to endorse a standing U.S. government military force is very troubling to me. I'm more inclined to agree with the American founders, who generally opposed such a standing army. Explicit Libertarian Party support for the maintenance of such an institution, I should point out, would also be a violation of the Dallas Accord on keeping the party officially neutral between the anarchist and minarchist (limited government) positions and not specifying how much government we ideally want to see in existence, if any. It's worth pointing out however that endorsement of a government standing army isn't the only way the resolution can be interpreted – although I suspect that if we were to survey people on whether such language constitutes an endorsement of a standing government army, most respondents would say yes. Here are a couple other possible interpretations which I think are technically consistent with the wording, although probably not what the maker or sponsors had in mind: • Since people on the part of Earth's surface commonly known as "the United States" could be defended against aggression via a non-aggressive foreign policy, a large and active libertarian movement, and a well-armed populace, the amount of military sufficient to defend the United States against aggression is zero, and thus that is (implicitly) the amount that we would be supporting if we pass the motion • The resolution's mention of "sufficient military to defend the United States" refers to non-government military forces such as independent militias, not to the U.S. government's military I mention these possible anarchist interpretations only for the record, not because I believe they are weighty enough to make the resolution acceptable as written. Given the considerations noted above, I must oppose the motion as written and accordingly vote no. On the positive side however, it is only the wording of the first "Whereas" clause that appears particularly problematic to me. The rest of the resolution, while not ideal in my view, seems palatable under the circumstances, and if that first clause, or at least the words "support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and" can be dropped, then I would be inclined to support it unless someone else manages to point out reasons I would consider strong enough to warrant abstention. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On May 20, 2017, at 1:01 AM, lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org wrote: > We have an electronic mail ballot. > > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 30, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Sponsor: Hayes, Hewitt, Hagan, Mattson > > Motion: > > Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world; > > Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military > were unjustly conscripted in the past; > > Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States > and, thereby, their property, families, and friends; > > Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for > purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts > to act as the world’s policeman; and > > Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways > in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense > against aggression; now, therefore, be it; > > Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian > principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a > vital part of our membership. > > > -Alicia > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-votes mailing list > Lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

6 19

FYI - Also shared on Facebook
by Arvin Vohra 21 May '17

21 May '17

Yesterday, I discussed my views on the military at the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island state convention. Here's what I presented. There are some parts of the military that do something useful. Those parts should be handled by the free market, and would be improved if they were handled by the free market. The Coast Guard rescues people. It's a good thing to do. However, they are also the largest part of the war on drugs, in terms of the value of the assets that they steal from businesses. Groups like AAA and various insurance companies are able to provide roadside assistance on the millions of miles of roads. These private sector services work reliably, and don't squander effort and resources on things as ludicrous as the War on Drugs. Would people be able to afford to pay for a AAA of the sea? My thought is if you have the money for a boat, you probably have the money for rescue insurance. The Navy protects shipping lanes. Again, a good thing to do. But it does so at an astronomical expense, with firepower levels disproportionately greater than any current or expected threat of piracy or impressment. Could the several multibillion dollar shipping companies find a way to pay for that? I think so. If not, the other option would be for companies to produce things domestically. Instead of outsourcing production overseas, having the shipments sent back to the U.S., with protection paid for by our tax dollars, companies would have to do a proper risk-reward calculation. It might increase domestic production (note that the U.S. is a net importer of physical goods). But then there are things that no one should be doing, at all. All U.S. involvement in foreign civil wars should end. All U.S. foreign military bases should be shut down today, and the troops should be brought home. We should immediately leave NATO, and let Europe pay for its own defense. Whatever supposed "influence" we are buying at the cost of such huge military spending is not worth it, and it is not working. NATO is allowing Europe to become socialist, as they don't have to be financially responsible enough to pay for their own defense. It is forcing us to become socialist, since we have to pay unacceptable taxes to fund that defense. Finally, the issue of culpability came up. I pointed out that good intentions don't erase bad actions done by the individual, or by the collective that they voluntarily support, but that those bad actions similarly don't erase the good intentions. Larry Sharpe <https://www.facebook.com/neosage?fref=mentions> pointed out that according to law and custom, culpability is what separates crimes like murder 1, 2, 3, manslaughter, etc., and that the intent had to be weighed very, very heavily. I found myself agreeing with Larry's perspective on this. I also agreed with his position on not behaving as Americans did with Vietnam vets, which lead to an entirely lost generation. Instead of converting vets into a powerful force for freedom, it simply hurt them for the sake of hurting them. On reflection, I am forced to recognize that while opposing military worship, which is often used to manipulate people into immoral acts, is right, and fighting the military industrial complex is right, and fighting military policy that creates enemies and reduces safety is right, and provoking people to reexamine their world view is right, creating collateral damage is wrong. I have no intention of being the kind of leader who can challenge the views of others, but cannot challenge his own. Words can hurt brutally. That's why I use them against the state, and the worship of the state. But they should be used carefully for that same reason. During the last week, I failed to be careful enough with those words. While they helped some people, they also hurt a lot of people. To those who were hurt by my words, I apologize to you, specifically, for both what I said, and for the impact it had. I know it will be a long time before many of you who have been involved in the military will be able to trust me again, if ever. I'll do my best to earn your trust the only way I know how to earn trust. I'll speak to you honestly. I'll fight for your freedoms with every weapon I have. My aim with a weapon is frankly laughable, but my words can do some damage. Whether you end up trusting me again or not, I will be fighting with you, against the state, for our shared goal of liberty. In Liberty, Arvin Vohra <https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions> -- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634

6 5

Re: [Lnc-business] Concerning the motion to remove the Vice Chair
by Starchild 21 May '17

21 May '17

Daniel, Thank you for writing to members of the Libertarian National Committee, and for your kind words and calm and measured council. As expressed in a recent message to this list, I agree with you about not removing the vice-chair from office. Although our reasoning is different – I wouldn't want someone with strongly anti-libertarian views on this body for instance, and so can hypothetically imagine an expression of personal views that I might feel would warrant a member's removal – in this case I have seen nothing from Arvin Vohra which I felt falls into that category, and he has generally conducted himself in office to the credit of the Libertarian Party. I think there was actually a much stronger case to be made for the removal of Bill Weld as our vice-presidential candidate for remarks such as the one you mention, which are clearly contrary to our values, but for better or for worse, we took no such action. Ultimately you are right that those who believe we are offending too many people – or not offending people we should be offending! – or otherwise failing to live up to expectations or act in a libertarian manner, have the recourse to come to convention and participate as delegates and make the appropriate changes, so that the party continues to function as a bottom-up organization. As the saying goes, politicians like diapers should be changed frequently, and for the same reasons! ;-) Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On May 19, 2017, at 6:25 AM, daniel lutz wrote: > Distinguished members of the LNC, > > As always I would like to begin by saying thank you to each and every one of you for the amazing work you all do. Your volunteer efforts are inspiring more and more new Libertarians everyday. > > I saw that a fellow Libertarian and veteran has asked for a motion to dismiss Vice Chair Vohra regarding his recent comments made about veterans. While I understand and sympathize with Mr. Sharpe's ire, no one likes being broad brushed or insulted, I cannot agree with the action of removing Mr. Vohra for several reason. Firstly these comments were made on his personal page, and when requested were clarified as such. Secondly Mr. Vohras comments while poorly framed were targeted at a very small population of veterans, a population that while sickening does exists. and finally because removing him would be as disingenuous to libertarian principles as Bill Weld wanting to grow the FBI by 1000 agents. > > Mr. Vohra spoke loudly from his personal pulpit with a great amount of ignorance on his subject matter. This is not a crime but an opportunity for growth. I believe Mr. Vohra has made an honest effort to learn more about the veteran community and that he has made an honest effort to apologize while remaining principled. If we start to remove and nuke prominent Libertarians for having personal opinions then we can no longer pretend to be a Party of principles. Veterans are proud people, but we are no more a special segment of society than anyone else, we must be open to scrutiny and ridicule lest we become an untouchable pillar of the state. > > I would urge you all to allow Mr. Vohra to continue his term as Vice Chair. I would also encourage every Libertarian, that if you don't like someones personal views or beliefs to either reach out to that person and offer an exchange of knowledge and experience. If they still feel they are unfit then get they should get their ass to convention. Had Mr. Vohra violated the SOP or governing documents then there may be a case but using the authority of the LNC for policing individuals personal views just because they offended a certain group is not us, it is not libertarian and I would hate to see it become Libertarian. > > In Liberty > Daniel Lutz > Proud Libertarian > Sgt. USMC 05-13

1 0

Libertarian National Committee Resolution on Military Members in the Libertarian Party
by danielehayes＠icloud.com 20 May '17

20 May '17

I am seeking co-sponsors for the following resolution. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Whereas, We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression and believe that the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world; Whereas, We oppose any form of compulsory national service and recognize that many members of the military were unjustly conscripted in the past; Whereas, Most voluntary members of the military joined with the idea and/or goal of defending the United States and, thereby, their property, families, and friends; Whereas, The United States Military-Industrial-Complex has used many well-meaning military service members for purposes other than defense against aggression and further involved them in foreign entanglements during attempts to act as the world’s policeman; and Whereas, Many current and former military service members are able to relate, identify, and speak out on the ways in which the United States military mission has been expanded and corrupted beyond a legitimate role of defense against aggression; now, therefore, be it; Resolved, Present and former members of the military who give such unique and powerful voice to the libertarian principles of peace and the non-initiation of force add great value to the Libertarian Party, and are welcomed as a vital part of our membership. Sent from Mail for Windows 10

7 28

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
by Caryn Ann Harlos 20 May '17

20 May '17

First a preface. I am support of the resolution we have on the table. I have no problem with highlighting any group that is the subject of conversation. The fact that I supported the Cuban Libertarian prisoners does not mean that I don't care about other people all over the world imprisoned against their human rights. I do not agree with the rhetoric of calling a whole group of people murderers and have said so. Now that that is out of the way. We are privileging the outcry of some members and not others and have for years, and that is not right. I saw this heartbreaking message today from one of my friends: ===Love my liberty lovers but as some may have noticed I have taken myself out of groups and unfriended some people. I quit. As an anarchist and radical I've never felt welcome, mostly my state. I feel like I wasted years of my life and everyone is still just doing the same bs they always have. So the LP didn't turn out to be quite the definition ofa tool in which I was trying to use. Although it has certainly made me feel like one. All you hard workers, fighters of injustice, people who actually give a shit= I love you!! Good luck.=== This is common. But who here will have the nerve to raise the call that we need to stop this? That in fact radicals and anarchists are indeed welcome pursuant to our Statement of Principles and the Dallas Accord? Who? This stuff goes on un-commented - and I am not standing for it. I applaud Larry Sharpe today who made it clear that we are in fact welcome. This should be unacceptable to us. It is unacceptable to me. We support what our Bylaws say is the foundation of the Party and that through which Liberty Shall Prevail (the title of my talk on the Dallas Accord and the Statement of Principles). So don't be surprised when we have people who will oppose that good resolution (IMHO) because we haven't stood for them for a long long time and have at times actually been openly hostile or *appeared* to be so. I am a radical and an anarchist. I do more than 99% of the people in this Party (but a lot less than the other 1% who are super-heros). I am here to stay, and I am welcome, and those of like mind to me are welcome, and* we frankly are sick and tired of feeling like we are not. *This was resolved in 1974 and remains resolved today. It had to be said. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> 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*

1 0

Making an Impact Locally
by Aaron Starr 20 May '17

20 May '17

KEYT-TV ABC 3: News Coverage on Oxnard Sewer Rate Hikes and City Council Recall Thanks to Channel 3 News for covering the May 16 rate hike decision by the Oxnard City Council. It includes a short sound bite from yours truly. http://www.keyt.com/news/oxnard-council-votes-in-favor-of-another-waste-wate r-rate-hike/504881335 Aaron Starr (805) 583-3308 Home (805) 404-8693 Mobile starrcpa(a)gmail.com

3 2