Hi Starchild, Thank you for your thoughtful analysis and carefully-crafted response that represents one of the few fresh voices of sanity in the predominately anti-intellectual wilderness and troubling crescendo of mindless emotionalism ranging from unethical pile-on venting to crass political opportunism reminiscent of the mainstream political tactics and intellectually-dishonest status quo of the discredited two-party system. Perhaps these recent LP internal intellectual-implosion, knee-jerk responses will serve the useful purpose of exposing the work that the Libertarian Party must do if we intend to provide a serious and thoughtful intellectual alternative to the broken two-party system. I must say I find the opening anti-intellectual salvos overwhelmingly disruptive, destructive and characterized by disingenuous misinterpretations of the college education military bribe moral dilemma as an insult to veterans. The logical fallacies of such misinterpretations are patently obvious as are the attempts to use these misinterpretations as a venue for acting-out emotional venting and opportunistic political gain. We humans and Libertarians are capable of using our brains for what they were designed for, i.e., thoughtful analysis before emoting as you have done superbly. My hope is that the silver lining of this painful incident will incentivize empowered individual Libertarians to emerge from this uninspiring swamp of reactionary groupthink to create a vanguard of leaders and followers worthy on the original heroic efforts that created our former bastion of freedom and free market prosperity and later the birth of the Libertarian party and inspiring Statement of Principles. We Libertarians are capable of far better responses to the challenging intellectual initiatives that differentiate the Libertarian Party from the duopoly. Starchild, I look forward to your forthcoming and equally thoughtful analysis of Arvin's moral intent and attention-getting semantic approach. I also hope that you will point us in a direction that leverages this incident to create a positive outcome for the Libertarian Party. Thoughts? ~David Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention ~David Pratt Demarest LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Starchild Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 5:03 AM To: Michael H. Wilson <evergreenlibertarian@gmail.com> Cc: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business@hq.lp.org>; ALLEN ACOSTA <islandal72@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Veterans in service to the Libertarian Party; see the note at the bottom. Hi Michael, Thank you for your message to members of the Libertarian National Committee, and for your activism! That's great to hear that yourself and other former soldiers in the Seattle area are organizing to support the Libertarian Party. I like the Washington Libertarians' "Support The Bill of Rights" banner - simple, blunt, and to the point. Regarding the "questionable comments" to which you refer, I'm guessing that you mean some of the recent comments posted by LP vice chair Arvin Vohra on Facebook, since LNC members were also sent another message about the topic criticizing him by name over these remarks, and there has been some debate over his statements about the U.S. government's military forces and personnel on the LNC list, as well as coverage on IPR ( http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/shane-trejo-libertarian-party- vice-chair-releases-controversial-anti-military-manifesto/ - the comments section is worth checking out). Without yet getting into my thoughts on what Arvin has written - I may say more on that later when I reply to the other message mentioned above, from (former?) LP member Michael Sanchez - I would like to ask your opinion as a longtime libertarian who opposes U.S. government military aggression (and if I'm not mistaken, a member of the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus who shares many of my views about the party!), on some questions that I think get to the heart of this controversy. I assume you agree that individuals are morally responsible for their own actions, and that working as a government soldier doesn't change that. But to what extent should people who voluntarily work for an aggression-based government in exchange for a paycheck be called out for doing so, or held morally responsible for immoral actions committed by other individuals who are part of that institution, if they themselves play only a relatively minor supporting role? As I see it this is by no means an easy question, and not only because I am also a former government soldier myself and conscious of my own compromises with authoritarian power and others made by generally freedom-loving people I respect (e.g. working a "respectable" above-the-table job that provides a good income - and entails paying large amounts of taxes that go toward funding evil). The challenge libertarians face is this: How do we maintain moral clarity and integrity, speak truth to power, and perhaps most crucially, work to de-legitimize the structures and choices that support aggression, without alienating people who might side with freedom against authoritarianism if push comes to shove, or making sacrifices in our lives that - let's be honest - most of us are not prepared to make? (Incidentally, I think we should do more to encourage such sacrifices and support and honor those who choose to make them, but that is a topic that deserves to be addressed at greater length than I want to take space for in this response.) There are definitely some individuals whom I believe we should not hesitate to call out and alienate, and I hope we can all agree on that. Powerful statist politicians who are responsible for significant government aggression, whether inside the United States or not, and individuals who personally commit heinous actions such as unjustified murder and other similarly unconscionable crimes, whether they work for government or not, are to me the most obviously deserving of Libertarian condemnation. But where should we draw the line when speaking as Libertarian Party leaders? What level(s) of criticism, if any, of those who choose to work for the U.S. government's military do you think yourself and your colleagues who are former soldiers would be comfortable hearing from the LP, and why? Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF P.S. - The photo you sent could be great for LP News, the LP website, or some other party publication or communication. Do staff have your permission to use it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A couple of LP Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra's Facebook posts (links copied from the comments section of the IPR story referenced above): During the last hours, I've seen many justifications for joining the military. To avoid confusion, I'll address them in a single post. 1. I thought I would be fighting for freedom, or to defend the constitution. If you were a soldier in recent history, you probably weren't. Instead, you were a person who got tricked by propaganda. That doesn't make you a hero; it makes you someone who got tricked. That's happened to many people. I personally have been tricked by government propaganda. I voted for Obama in 2008. When I learned that I had been tricked, and had encouraged others to do the same foolish action, I decided to work to make amends. I spent thousands of hours helping people see the lie of the duopoly. If you were tricked by military recruiters, help prevent the same thing from happening to others. Share your experiences, and speak out boldly. 2. Many people don't care about all that, they just want money for college. That's a morally unacceptable position. That's saying, "I signed up for a job where I might have to kill innocents because I wanted the money." It's not new to say, "I idd violence because I wanted money." It's not moral either. 3. A soldier is like a gun. You don't blame guns when someone uses a gun for mass shootings; blame only the president, not the soldiers who follow his orders. A soldier is not a gun. A soldier has thoughts, morals, and judgment. If a gun had human level intelligence and then chose to be part of a school shooting, I would blame the gun along with the wielder. When a soldier chooses to follow an order to bomb a school or hospital, I similarly blame the solider along with the politician ordering him. I know the military makes a big propaganda show of calling soldiers military property, but the fact is slavery was outlawed by the 13th amendment. You are not an object. You are not a thing. You are a human being, with human abilities, and human responsibilities. 4. I still think what the military is doing is right. I'm proud of the work I did/am doing/will do. In that case, I disagree. I don't think you are an immoral person, but I do think you have been mislead. Sure, the American army in 1776 did great things. But today's military is not fighting for our freedom. It's getting involved in civil wars, and creating blowback. There are certain parts of the military that are purely defensive, at least in theory. But that theory rarely pans out. My only moral opposition to those is the tax funding, which applies to every government worker and contractor, not just to military. 5. Come to my base and say it to me and my platoon, so I can kick your [butt] Fighting ideas you dislike with violence is exactly why the military is failing at its current attempt to beat radical Islam with bombs. Ideas are defeated with better ideas. Women's rights happened through ideas and debates, not bombs. The same hold true of minority rights and even democracy. Beating up individuals doesn't change minds any more than bombing does. In the next few days, I will be putting together a working group for Counter Recruiting. The goal is to undue the lies and bluster military recruiters use to dupe young men and women into misusing themselves in the pursuit of immoral wars. All are welcome to join this group. https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1511726878858800 It seems that many members of the military have taken offense to the phrase "accessory to murder" used to describe non-combat support staff of combat soldiers, and the phrase "murder" to describe military combat used in completely counterproductive wars that create enemies. If the issue here is word choice, then I'm sure we can find a replacement. Replace murder with "tricked into killing" or "counterproductive killing" or "violence in the service of counterproductive military policy." Replace accessory with "support staff to violence that makes America less safe by creating predictable blowback." Replace enlist with "agree to follow orders from people who have been giving immoral orders for the last 40 years." Replace service with "squandering the desire for honor on the military industrial complex." If the issue is word choice, then there are plenty of other phrases. I'd be happy to immediately apologize for the word choice - if those who claim to care only about the word choice will join on the new word choice. That leaves this question: do those of you who take issue with the word choice believe military policy is good or bad? Do you think that the core combat missions have been corrupted, by politicians and the military industrial compex? Or do you believe that the current actions in the Middle East, the hundreds of overseas bases, the word policing are good? If you believe that those military actions are good, then I simply disagree. Ending military overreach, shutting down foreign military bases, and using the military for defense only will make us safer, save us blood and treasure, and stop psychologically damaging people by forcing them to take part in counterproductive violence and killing. If you believe that those military actions are bad, that the mission has been corrupted, then will you say so to the young men and women considering enlisting? Will you remind people who got tricked by the manipulation of military recruiters that they have the Entry Level Separation option, and can still leave within the first few months of joining? When you see Hollywood movies jammed with military propaganda, will you say something to those who look up to you and trust you? If you believe that current military actions are wrong, that the military industrial complex and politicians have corrupted the mission, then will you help starve the beast? Will you help encourage people not to enlist? If some of the last day's responses were just about word choice, let me know and I'll change it. If it's just that you support military overreach, then I hope you will reconsider your position. Respectfully, Arvin Vohra <https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/> https://www.facebook.com/arvin.vohra.9/posts/1513441192020702 On May 11, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Michael H. Wilson wrote: <https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18199339_1491688597519110_8 782152455506462635_n.jpg?oh=24ac2708f9bc81c63ae3344f5b9f0067&oe=59B99E6E> This is a local group of veterans working to promote the LP. There are six of us out on this day, four Army vets from Iraq/Afghanistan, one Marine and me, Coast Guard. I'm the old fart in the chair. At least four of these men are seriously disabled. They understand the situation. It would help if the LP put more emphasis on stopping the war and bringing all of the troops home. Maybe a big banner across the top of the web page or some decent literature with numbers of troops and dollars of costs written out. I think we will continue our efforts. I just hope the LP can put a stop to some of the questionable comments I and many others have heard recently Thank you Michael H. Wilson; member since 1980