No ~David Pratt Demarest LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) On 2018-01-20 21:06, Daniel Hayes wrote:

Yes

Daniel Hayes

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Jan 20, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

---

Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

I will figure out which email ballots to cosponsor (again, without saying I'll vote for them) if it turns out there are no longer 6 members agreeing to an electronic meeting. I much prefer to discuss this by electronic meeting, and I think the email thread I am responding to demonstrates why. Issues of wording can generate long threads without resolution (as we've amply demonstrated) but be resolved in a few minutes through motions to amend. A meeting will be more efficient, more focused, and more decisive, in my view. Joshua A. Katz On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

Words matter, and this is a perfect example of someone who might support a generic concept of censure having to oppose the details of the motion wording. Censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. Our platform says "consenting adults" and that our recognition of parental roles does not condone abuse. Our platform does not say, "If your having sex leads to kids that you can't afford, and we have to pay for, please don't have sex. Else: not our business." Etc. I still seek cosponsors for yesterday's proposed wording of a motion for suspension. I will formally cast my vote on this motion later, as timing may matter if there is to be an electronic meeting. -Alicia

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <[1]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

References

1. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

I will figure out which email ballots to cosponsor (again, without saying I'll vote for them) if it turns out there are no longer 6 members agreeing to an electronic meeting. I much prefer to discuss this by electronic meeting, and I think the email thread I am responding to demonstrates why. Issues of wording can generate long threads without resolution (as we've amply demonstrated) but be resolved in a few minutes through motions to amend. A meeting will be more efficient, more focused, and more decisive, in my view. Joshua A. Katz On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Alicia Mattson <[1]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: Words matter, and this is a perfect example of someone who might support a generic concept of censure having to oppose the details of the motion wording. Censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. Our platform says "consenting adults" and that our recognition of parental roles does not condone abuse. Our platform does not say, "If your having sex leads to kids that you can't afford, and we have to pay for, please don't have sex. Else: not our business." Etc. I still seek cosponsors for yesterday's proposed wording of a motion for suspension. I will formally cast my vote on this motion later, as timing may matter if there is to be an electronic meeting. -Alicia On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <[1][2]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia References 1. mailto:[3]agmattson@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [4]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 2. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 3. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Joshua, there is one Email ballot for censure. This is the one. Daniel Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 20, 2018, at 9:48 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

I agree Joshua.

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:42 PM, Joshua Katz <[1]planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

I will figure out which email ballots to cosponsor (again, without saying I'll vote for them) if it turns out there are no longer 6 members agreeing to an electronic meeting. I much prefer to discuss this by electronic meeting, and I think the email thread I am responding to demonstrates why. Issues of wording can generate long threads without resolution (as we've amply demonstrated) but be resolved in a few minutes through motions to amend. A meeting will be more efficient, more focused, and more decisive, in my view. Joshua A. Katz On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Alicia Mattson

<[1][2]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: Words matter, and this is a perfect example of someone who might support a generic concept of censure having to oppose the details of the motion wording. Censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. Our platform says "consenting adults" and that our recognition of parental roles does not condone abuse. Our platform does not say, "If your having sex leads to kids that you can't afford, and we have to pay for, please don't have sex. Else: not our business." Etc. I still seek cosponsors for yesterday's proposed wording of a motion for suspension. I will formally cast my vote on this motion later, as timing may matter if there is to be an electronic meeting. -Alicia On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson

<[1][2][3]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia References 1. mailto:[3][4]agmattson@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [4][5]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [5][6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[7]agmattson@gmail.com 2. mailto:[8]agmattson@gmail.com 3. mailto:[9]agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:[10]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com 2. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 3. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 5. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 7. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 8. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 9. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 11. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

I vote yes. Jeff Hewitt On 2018-01-21 05:56, Sam Goldstein wrote:

I vote Yes.

--- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell

On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:

...

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

---

Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Please try and avoid saying the T word. Kthnx Daniel Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Dustin Nanna <dustin.nanna@lp.org> wrote:

Haven't seen Elizabeth vote yet, so aye. She's more than welcome to come trump my vote. Dustin Nanna LNC Region 3 Alternate Vice Chair/Deputy Communications Director Libertarian Party of Ohio (740) 816-9805 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

I still favor the electronic meeting. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-22 20:36, Joshua Katz wrote:

It appears this email ballot has replaced the drive for an electronic meeting. I fear that, if this motion fails, this means the ordeal will not end, and that instead other email ballots will be forthcoming. In fact, should it fail, I am inclined to cosponsor one. I am not yet ready to vote. Instead, I write to argue some points in favor, and some against. I look forward to seeing the debate develop further, now that we have before us a precise action to debate, and intend to base my vote on any further points raised. For now, I remain strongly inclined to vote no. First, I will address the wording briefly. I deny that Mr. Vohra has presented libertarian ideas in some, but not all, of his posts. This motion, though, clearly refers to his most recent remarks, and I deny that they are grounded in libertarian ideas. As you know, I argue in favor of a large libertarian tent. I think much belongs in the broad libertarian tradition. That said, there is a line. In my opinion, while the line-drawing exercise is a separate topic, just as day is not night despite the existence of dusk, so too is there a rather large area of actions so contrary to developmental and societal norms as to be far outside libertarian inquiry. I defend line-drawing, but do not think that criticisms of it fail to be libertarian. On the other hand, the denial that there is a zone of unacceptability is, in my view, utterly morally indefensible and shocking to the conscience. Yet, even recently, some of Mr. Vohra's points have been well within our libertarian tradition. The abuse of SORs is an affront to liberty, and we must end it. Yet we can take action to end of restrict it, or we can simply speak words which make it harder to address. I believe Mr. Vohra's recent actions fall into the latter category, and to that extent, and only that extent, I agree with the factual claims of the motion. Yet, I ask, so what? Is my strong moral disgust with his words reason to censure? The Vice Chair, it is true, sometimes speaks for the Party. Even when he speaks individually, he is perceived as speaking for us. He has made it clear, both through his actions and his words, that he intends to drag this Party in the direction he wishes to go, one I find utterly unlikely to succeed, morally inferior, and, in point of of fact, one in which I simply will never go. If he succeeds in his project, it will be without me. It is clear to me, though, from our members' reactions, that he will not succeed. His remarks do make me less proud, perhaps even ashamed, to present myself as a Libertarian, until I remember their low reach among the general public. I am proud to stand for my notion of what liberty means. I will not be forced to stand for a concept of liberty I find detestable, unfree, and immoral. At the same time, I am concerned about the consequences of this board choosing to monitor the off-work statements of its members, and assign censure for them. Will we stick to what I consider detestable - and, if we do, should that be enough to reassure me that doing so is fine? Many have written, asking us to take some form of action, and prophesying grave consequences if we do not. Some of these, particularly the internal, I do not doubt. Others, I doubt. Before turning to those doubts, though, I will weigh in on an issue which has been much discussed already here. In keeping with every corporate code, our Articles of Incorporation, and our bylaws, I believe we are here to be leaders, not in a purely representative capacity. During region formation, I pushed for, and received, a provision making it easier than in past agreements to remove our rep and alternate. I explained my reasons then: I intended to act as I saw best, for the organization's health. Certainly, input from the region would form a part of my judgment, but in the end, my judgment would be my own. Given that, I wanted my region to have an easy solution if my actions did not comport with its vision. In fact, I also made clear that it would take less than the regional agreement said to remove me, that I would resign if I felt there was widespread dissatisfaction with my votes. I am no longer a regional alternate, though - and now feel the same way about the national party, except that "widespread" is obviously a higher threshold. Others feel differently, and that is fine with me, so long as we all keep in mind that we, and no one else, are the fiduciaries, that we, and no one else, will be held responsible for the Party's health. Another reason for this model is precisely the current situation. Reactions and overreactions to individual incidents call for sober reflection. Our members depend on us to provide that. Yet another reason, perhaps the most important to me personally, is that we serve more than our members. A party is, in some sense, like a benefit corporation. It has many stakeholders beyond its membership. Notably, it serves the voters. 67% of voters want a viable third party. It is a mistake to say they should all vote Libertarian, of course, since many do not agree with our views and values. However, the public desire for better candidates and a better party does make it incumbent on us to try to provide one. We must often look beyond our narrow interests and to the society in which we exist. Which brings me to my next point. While Mr. Vohra's comments are, in my view, harmful, they also bring to the surface other issues. I haven't conducted the polling, but I have some predictions. If I polled random voters, statistically none would know who our Vice Chair is - just as statistically none would know the Vice Chairs of other parties. If I polled voters of a particular party, the results would vary. Statistically no Republicans would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically no Democrats would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically, a rather significant portion of our voters would know who our Vice Chair is. The difference is that we are following a non-scalable model. We simply cannot be successful at the polls and maintain that number, and we act far more often in ways that maintain our closed-circle nature than that aim for success at the polls. Ronna McDaniels says, in response to outrageous tweets from a far more public figure than Mr. Vohra, that she has an organization to run and doesn't have time to comment. We exchange hundreds of emails when our Vice Chair says something outrageous. We are not serving the voters. We are serving ourselves, and we are doing it with money donated, in part, for us to serve the public. This is a shame, and this is the source of our current woes. We speak about harming our candidates, yet I firmly believe any candidate can, right now, go walk doors and hear 0 questions about Mr. Vohra. I have no doubt, of course, that some of our candidates can be harmed, if their opponents take the time to research our party, manage to find Mr. Vohra's comments which are not on any of our accounts (of course, if our members, and our detractors, choose to comment about them on our accounts, this will be far easier), and then to link our candidates to them. This is a serious concern for some candidates, and if I heard from those candidates that a motion like this would help their campaigns, that might make a difference to me. I have heard nothing from those candidates. Our social media bubbles have convinced us that the world knows and cares. It does not. The actual concern is that candidates themselves drop out, activists themselves leave, and so on, in response to these comments. These are serious concerns: we need candidates, we need activists, we need donors. Yet they cannot be our voting base, and we cannot serve only their interests. In fact, those observations are related. Other parties do not hemorrhage candidates, activists, and donors every time their Vice Chair says something, because their candidates, activists, and donors are not running, being active, and donating based on those sorts of internal concerns. Rather, their candidates run for their electoral base. Their activists volunteer to expand their electoral base. Their donors donate to make action happen, to make laws change - because they have an electoral base to sweep them to office, so long as work is done to fill the narrow gap remaining. The motions about Mr. Vohra are about people within our party being upset. We should react to such concerns, but they should not be the only concerns to which we react. Finally, we should respect the views of our delegates, who vote to form a board expressing the aggregate of their individual preferences (within the limits imposed by Arrow's Theorem). I disagree with those who say the delegates did not know what they were getting. Perhaps as a factual matter that is true, I can't say. But they could have, and should have, known what they were getting, and I consider their vote to be expressing a preference in that regard. It is not our role to reverse them or, depending on how we see it, to save them. This Party is ultimately ruled by the delegates, and we, should we choose to serve on this board, must live within their decisions (as restricted by corporate codes and bylaws). Censure is, in this regard, far different from removal, but arises from the same place.

Virus-free. [1]www.avast.com

Joshua A. Katz On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <[2]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

Visible links 1. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig... 2. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 3. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Hidden links: 6. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig... 7. file://localhost/tmp/tmpoGaAKX.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Well said, Mr. Katz. On Jan 22, 2018 7:36 PM, "Joshua Katz" <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

It appears this email ballot has replaced the drive for an electronic meeting. I fear that, if this motion fails, this means the ordeal will not end, and that instead other email ballots will be forthcoming. In fact, should it fail, I am inclined to cosponsor one. I am not yet ready to vote. Instead, I write to argue some points in favor, and some against. I look forward to seeing the debate develop further, now that we have before us a precise action to debate, and intend to base my vote on any further points raised. For now, I remain strongly inclined to vote no. First, I will address the wording briefly. I deny that Mr. Vohra has presented libertarian ideas in some, but not all, of his posts. This motion, though, clearly refers to his most recent remarks, and I deny that they are grounded in libertarian ideas. As you know, I argue in favor of a large libertarian tent. I think much belongs in the broad libertarian tradition. That said, there is a line. In my opinion, while the line-drawing exercise is a separate topic, just as day is not night despite the existence of dusk, so too is there a rather large area of actions so contrary to developmental and societal norms as to be far outside libertarian inquiry. I defend line-drawing, but do not think that criticisms of it fail to be libertarian. On the other hand, the denial that there is a zone of unacceptability is, in my view, utterly morally indefensible and shocking to the conscience. Yet, even recently, some of Mr. Vohra's points have been well within our libertarian tradition. The abuse of SORs is an affront to liberty, and we must end it. Yet we can take action to end of restrict it, or we can simply speak words which make it harder to address. I believe Mr. Vohra's recent actions fall into the latter category, and to that extent, and only that extent, I agree with the factual claims of the motion. Yet, I ask, so what? Is my strong moral disgust with his words reason to censure? The Vice Chair, it is true, sometimes speaks for the Party. Even when he speaks individually, he is perceived as speaking for us. He has made it clear, both through his actions and his words, that he intends to drag this Party in the direction he wishes to go, one I find utterly unlikely to succeed, morally inferior, and, in point of of fact, one in which I simply will never go. If he succeeds in his project, it will be without me. It is clear to me, though, from our members' reactions, that he will not succeed. His remarks do make me less proud, perhaps even ashamed, to present myself as a Libertarian, until I remember their low reach among the general public. I am proud to stand for my notion of what liberty means. I will not be forced to stand for a concept of liberty I find detestable, unfree, and immoral. At the same time, I am concerned about the consequences of this board choosing to monitor the off-work statements of its members, and assign censure for them. Will we stick to what I consider detestable - and, if we do, should that be enough to reassure me that doing so is fine? Many have written, asking us to take some form of action, and prophesying grave consequences if we do not. Some of these, particularly the internal, I do not doubt. Others, I doubt. Before turning to those doubts, though, I will weigh in on an issue which has been much discussed already here. In keeping with every corporate code, our Articles of Incorporation, and our bylaws, I believe we are here to be leaders, not in a purely representative capacity. During region formation, I pushed for, and received, a provision making it easier than in past agreements to remove our rep and alternate. I explained my reasons then: I intended to act as I saw best, for the organization's health. Certainly, input from the region would form a part of my judgment, but in the end, my judgment would be my own. Given that, I wanted my region to have an easy solution if my actions did not comport with its vision. In fact, I also made clear that it would take less than the regional agreement said to remove me, that I would resign if I felt there was widespread dissatisfaction with my votes. I am no longer a regional alternate, though - and now feel the same way about the national party, except that "widespread" is obviously a higher threshold. Others feel differently, and that is fine with me, so long as we all keep in mind that we, and no one else, are the fiduciaries, that we, and no one else, will be held responsible for the Party's health. Another reason for this model is precisely the current situation. Reactions and overreactions to individual incidents call for sober reflection. Our members depend on us to provide that. Yet another reason, perhaps the most important to me personally, is that we serve more than our members. A party is, in some sense, like a benefit corporation. It has many stakeholders beyond its membership. Notably, it serves the voters. 67% of voters want a viable third party. It is a mistake to say they should all vote Libertarian, of course, since many do not agree with our views and values. However, the public desire for better candidates and a better party does make it incumbent on us to try to provide one. We must often look beyond our narrow interests and to the society in which we exist. Which brings me to my next point. While Mr. Vohra's comments are, in my view, harmful, they also bring to the surface other issues. I haven't conducted the polling, but I have some predictions. If I polled random voters, statistically none would know who our Vice Chair is - just as statistically none would know the Vice Chairs of other parties. If I polled voters of a particular party, the results would vary. Statistically no Republicans would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically no Democrats would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically, a rather significant portion of our voters would know who our Vice Chair is. The difference is that we are following a non-scalable model. We simply cannot be successful at the polls and maintain that number, and we act far more often in ways that maintain our closed-circle nature than that aim for success at the polls. Ronna McDaniels says, in response to outrageous tweets from a far more public figure than Mr. Vohra, that she has an organization to run and doesn't have time to comment. We exchange hundreds of emails when our Vice Chair says something outrageous. We are not serving the voters. We are serving ourselves, and we are doing it with money donated, in part, for us to serve the public. This is a shame, and this is the source of our current woes. We speak about harming our candidates, yet I firmly believe any candidate can, right now, go walk doors and hear 0 questions about Mr. Vohra. I have no doubt, of course, that some of our candidates can be harmed, if their opponents take the time to research our party, manage to find Mr. Vohra's comments which are not on any of our accounts (of course, if our members, and our detractors, choose to comment about them on our accounts, this will be far easier), and then to link our candidates to them. This is a serious concern for some candidates, and if I heard from those candidates that a motion like this would help their campaigns, that might make a difference to me. I have heard nothing from those candidates. Our social media bubbles have convinced us that the world knows and cares. It does not. The actual concern is that candidates themselves drop out, activists themselves leave, and so on, in response to these comments. These are serious concerns: we need candidates, we need activists, we need donors. Yet they cannot be our voting base, and we cannot serve only their interests. In fact, those observations are related. Other parties do not hemorrhage candidates, activists, and donors every time their Vice Chair says something, because their candidates, activists, and donors are not running, being active, and donating based on those sorts of internal concerns. Rather, their candidates run for their electoral base. Their activists volunteer to expand their electoral base. Their donors donate to make action happen, to make laws change - because they have an electoral base to sweep them to office, so long as work is done to fill the narrow gap remaining. The motions about Mr. Vohra are about people within our party being upset. We should react to such concerns, but they should not be the only concerns to which we react. Finally, we should respect the views of our delegates, who vote to form a board expressing the aggregate of their individual preferences (within the limits imposed by Arrow's Theorem). I disagree with those who say the delegates did not know what they were getting. Perhaps as a factual matter that is true, I can't say. But they could have, and should have, known what they were getting, and I consider their vote to be expressing a preference in that regard. It is not our role to reverse them or, depending on how we see it, to save them. This Party is ultimately ruled by the delegates, and we, should we choose to serve on this board, must live within their decisions (as restricted by corporate codes and bylaws). Censure is, in this regard, far different from removal, but arises from the same place.

Virus-free. [1]www.avast.com

Joshua A. Katz On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <[2]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

Visible links 1. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_ source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link 2. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 3. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Hidden links: 6. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_ source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon 7. file://localhost/tmp/tmpoGaAKX.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7- 40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Well said, Mr. Katz. On Jan 22, 2018 7:36 PM, "Joshua Katz" <[1]planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: It appears this email ballot has replaced the drive for an electronic meeting. I fear that, if this motion fails, this means the ordeal will not end, and that instead other email ballots will be forthcoming. In fact, should it fail, I am inclined to cosponsor one. I am not yet ready to vote. Instead, I write to argue some points in favor, and some against. I look forward to seeing the debate develop further, now that we have before us a precise action to debate, and intend to base my vote on any further points raised. For now, I remain strongly inclined to vote no. First, I will address the wording briefly. I deny that Mr. Vohra has presented libertarian ideas in some, but not all, of his posts. This motion, though, clearly refers to his most recent remarks, and I deny that they are grounded in libertarian ideas. As you know, I argue in favor of a large libertarian tent. I think much belongs in the broad libertarian tradition. That said, there is a line. In my opinion, while the line-drawing exercise is a separate topic, just as day is not night despite the existence of dusk, so too is there a rather large area of actions so contrary to developmental and societal norms as to be far outside libertarian inquiry. I defend line-drawing, but do not think that criticisms of it fail to be libertarian. On the other hand, the denial that there is a zone of unacceptability is, in my view, utterly morally indefensible and shocking to the conscience. Yet, even recently, some of Mr. Vohra's points have been well within our libertarian tradition. The abuse of SORs is an affront to liberty, and we must end it. Yet we can take action to end of restrict it, or we can simply speak words which make it harder to address. I believe Mr. Vohra's recent actions fall into the latter category, and to that extent, and only that extent, I agree with the factual claims of the motion. Yet, I ask, so what? Is my strong moral disgust with his words reason to censure? The Vice Chair, it is true, sometimes speaks for the Party. Even when he speaks individually, he is perceived as speaking for us. He has made it clear, both through his actions and his words, that he intends to drag this Party in the direction he wishes to go, one I find utterly unlikely to succeed, morally inferior, and, in point of of fact, one in which I simply will never go. If he succeeds in his project, it will be without me. It is clear to me, though, from our members' reactions, that he will not succeed. His remarks do make me less proud, perhaps even ashamed, to present myself as a Libertarian, until I remember their low reach among the general public. I am proud to stand for my notion of what liberty means. I will not be forced to stand for a concept of liberty I find detestable, unfree, and immoral. At the same time, I am concerned about the consequences of this board choosing to monitor the off-work statements of its members, and assign censure for them. Will we stick to what I consider detestable - and, if we do, should that be enough to reassure me that doing so is fine? Many have written, asking us to take some form of action, and prophesying grave consequences if we do not. Some of these, particularly the internal, I do not doubt. Others, I doubt. Before turning to those doubts, though, I will weigh in on an issue which has been much discussed already here. In keeping with every corporate code, our Articles of Incorporation, and our bylaws, I believe we are here to be leaders, not in a purely representative capacity. During region formation, I pushed for, and received, a provision making it easier than in past agreements to remove our rep and alternate. I explained my reasons then: I intended to act as I saw best, for the organization's health. Certainly, input from the region would form a part of my judgment, but in the end, my judgment would be my own. Given that, I wanted my region to have an easy solution if my actions did not comport with its vision. In fact, I also made clear that it would take less than the regional agreement said to remove me, that I would resign if I felt there was widespread dissatisfaction with my votes. I am no longer a regional alternate, though - and now feel the same way about the national party, except that "widespread" is obviously a higher threshold. Others feel differently, and that is fine with me, so long as we all keep in mind that we, and no one else, are the fiduciaries, that we, and no one else, will be held responsible for the Party's health. Another reason for this model is precisely the current situation. Reactions and overreactions to individual incidents call for sober reflection. Our members depend on us to provide that. Yet another reason, perhaps the most important to me personally, is that we serve more than our members. A party is, in some sense, like a benefit corporation. It has many stakeholders beyond its membership. Notably, it serves the voters. 67% of voters want a viable third party. It is a mistake to say they should all vote Libertarian, of course, since many do not agree with our views and values. However, the public desire for better candidates and a better party does make it incumbent on us to try to provide one. We must often look beyond our narrow interests and to the society in which we exist. Which brings me to my next point. While Mr. Vohra's comments are, in my view, harmful, they also bring to the surface other issues. I haven't conducted the polling, but I have some predictions. If I polled random voters, statistically none would know who our Vice Chair is - just as statistically none would know the Vice Chairs of other parties. If I polled voters of a particular party, the results would vary. Statistically no Republicans would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically no Democrats would know who their Vice Chair is. Statistically, a rather significant portion of our voters would know who our Vice Chair is. The difference is that we are following a non-scalable model. We simply cannot be successful at the polls and maintain that number, and we act far more often in ways that maintain our closed-circle nature than that aim for success at the polls. Ronna McDaniels says, in response to outrageous tweets from a far more public figure than Mr. Vohra, that she has an organization to run and doesn't have time to comment. We exchange hundreds of emails when our Vice Chair says something outrageous. We are not serving the voters. We are serving ourselves, and we are doing it with money donated, in part, for us to serve the public. This is a shame, and this is the source of our current woes. We speak about harming our candidates, yet I firmly believe any candidate can, right now, go walk doors and hear 0 questions about Mr. Vohra. I have no doubt, of course, that some of our candidates can be harmed, if their opponents take the time to research our party, manage to find Mr. Vohra's comments which are not on any of our accounts (of course, if our members, and our detractors, choose to comment about them on our accounts, this will be far easier), and then to link our candidates to them. This is a serious concern for some candidates, and if I heard from those candidates that a motion like this would help their campaigns, that might make a difference to me. I have heard nothing from those candidates. Our social media bubbles have convinced us that the world knows and cares. It does not. The actual concern is that candidates themselves drop out, activists themselves leave, and so on, in response to these comments. These are serious concerns: we need candidates, we need activists, we need donors. Yet they cannot be our voting base, and we cannot serve only their interests. In fact, those observations are related. Other parties do not hemorrhage candidates, activists, and donors every time their Vice Chair says something, because their candidates, activists, and donors are not running, being active, and donating based on those sorts of internal concerns. Rather, their candidates run for their electoral base. Their activists volunteer to expand their electoral base. Their donors donate to make action happen, to make laws change - because they have an electoral base to sweep them to office, so long as work is done to fill the narrow gap remaining. The motions about Mr. Vohra are about people within our party being upset. We should react to such concerns, but they should not be the only concerns to which we react. Finally, we should respect the views of our delegates, who vote to form a board expressing the aggregate of their individual preferences (within the limits imposed by Arrow's Theorem). I disagree with those who say the delegates did not know what they were getting. Perhaps as a factual matter that is true, I can't say. But they could have, and should have, known what they were getting, and I consider their vote to be expressing a preference in that regard. It is not our role to reverse them or, depending on how we see it, to save them. This Party is ultimately ruled by the delegates, and we, should we choose to serve on this board, must live within their decisions (as restricted by corporate codes and bylaws). Censure is, in this regard, far different from removal, but arises from the same place. Virus-free. [1][2]www.avast.com Joshua A. Katz On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <[2][3]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3][4]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4][5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References Visible links 1. [6]https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_ source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link 2. mailto:[7]agmattson@gmail.com 3. mailto:[8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business Hidden links: 6. [10]https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_ source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon 7. file://localhost/tmp/tmpoGaAKX.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7- 40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2 _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [11]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com 2. http://www.avast.com/ 3. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig... 7. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 10. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig... 11. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Brutalism is a form of libertarianism. I reject it, but there is nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for others. It requires non-aggression. But when it comes to a political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable, and I think, necessary. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others. I think there is a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you. I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal right about it. Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas. Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say that he felt that was implied. It certainly wasn't enough for me nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators, and that is something we cannot have. But on the sheer face of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas. Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian. He implied it was emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the motion. He made what could be beautiful into something ugly. And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness. We as a party should be promoting the beautiful. And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note. One really obvious reason is right here. Me. Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof. Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves. I hope to be made much more after the Tucker model. I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1 states support but I am not voting on it at this time. As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty. Knowing then what I know now, yes I would have suggested. But one cannot backwards project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up. There is very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time. I think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now. I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these things. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn < elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:

I vote no. ----------------

I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold:

1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself.

Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility.

2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound.

--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus http://www.lpcaucus.org/

On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:

...

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Brutalism is a form of libertarianism. I reject it, but there is nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for others. It requires non-aggression. But when it comes to a political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable, and I think, necessary. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others. I think there is a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you. I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal right about it. Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas. Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say that he felt that was implied. It certainly wasn't enough for me nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators, and that is something we cannot have. But on the sheer face of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas. Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian. He implied it was emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the motion. He made what could be beautiful into something ugly. And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness. We as a party should be promoting the beautiful. And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note. One really obvious reason is right here. Me. Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof. Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves. I hope to be made much more after the Tucker model. I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1 states support but I am not voting on it at this time. As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty. Knowing then what I know now, yes I would have suggested. But one cannot backwards project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up. There is very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time. I think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now. I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these things. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote: I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [2]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [5]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 3. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

===It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. === Of course. == This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. === The word "minor" is a legal term that can change tomorrow. 18 is not a magical age in fact the brain is still developing way beyond that. A twenty year old cannot consent the way a thirty year old can either, but the question isn't equal capacity it is sufficient capacity. And at what age that happens is NOT a determined set in stone libertarian principle. Age of consent has been debated since the beginning of the Party and we cannot simply by fiat declared it settled. It isn't. So when is sufficient capacity? It differs. My views are quite conservative and while I would not punish two young people who are both not sufficiently capable, I do think age disparaties are a huge issue but my view is not THE Libertarian view. Nor is it timeless. I think our affluent culture which allows us to extend adolescent and childhood plays a huge factor and that we simply don't raise our children to be sufficiently capable early. In other times they did. It was a necessity. Our being to not do so is a luxury but at what point does that conflict with biological urges? That is a question. While I think Arvin was nowhere near nuanced or clear on this, neither was it nuanced or clear that he was promoting anything contrary. He may disagree on a medical/scientific issue of when sufficient capability is reached but a disagreement on FACT doesn't make it a disagreement on a principle. I think he agrees that incapable people cannot give consent. THAT is the Libertarian principles, not some arbitrary labeling of "minor." I think the law has it about right most of the time, but that is not anything inherent in the law, it is the law recognizes reality. But I don't believe in set age of consent laws. I believe in a shifting presumption of incapability. === I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". === Sure they are. If they are not the ones committing the aggression there is no obligation to care about it. That makes them a bad person but it doesn't make them not a libertarian. Even our own platform recognizes this when it says that an inherent right does not create any obligation upon other people to fulfill that right, much less care if anyone does. A bad person =/= not libertarian. ==They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. === As an individualist philosophy not committing theft oneself is the bare requirement without which one is not libertarian. More is not required. Though more is more human. ==Which means they don't care about theft. === No it doesn't. It means they are emotionally stunted but there are no unassumed positive obligations in libertarianism. ==Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. === You are conflating not caring with saying it is okay. Saying it is okay is advocating force. Not caring is passive. There is a difference. And arguing Arvin crossed that line in his horrid welfare example but I think we don't jump to the absolute worst conclusion but likely somewhere in the middle. An unempathetic and recklessly poor messaging. I think being a political libertarian requires caring. Active caring. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn < elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:

Caryn Ann,

It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. This isn't just about sex though, but medical procedures and other actions that may be perpetrated upon a person. If a person isn't giving informed consent, then the actions are aggression.

You wrote: "But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others."

I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. Which means they don't care about theft. Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. That's not being against theft. It's being against a situation.

Libertarians aren't taking a stance against situations. We're taking a stance against actions. So, yes, I as a libertarian, reject aggression against ALL people. You don't need a philosophy to say "I don't want to do this or have it happen to me". That's just a personal preference. BEING a libertarian means you don't want OTHER people to commit aggression too.

--- Elizabeth Van Horn

On 2018-01-22 22:50, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

...

Brutalism is a form of libertarianism. I reject it, but there is nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for others. It requires non-aggression. But when it comes to a political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable, and I think, necessary. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others. I think there is a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you. I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal right about it. Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas. Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say that he felt that was implied. It certainly wasn't enough for me nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators, and that is something we cannot have. But on the sheer face of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas. Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian. He implied it was emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the motion. He made what could be beautiful into something ugly. And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness. We as a party should be promoting the beautiful. And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note. One really obvious reason is right here. Me. Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof. Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves. I hope to be made much more after the Tucker model. I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1 states support but I am not voting on it at this time. As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty. Knowing then what I know now, yes I would have suggested. But one cannot backwards project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up. There is very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time. I think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now. I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these things.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:

I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [2]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [5]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 3. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

===It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. === Of course. == This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. === The word "minor" is a legal term that can change tomorrow. 18 is not a magical age in fact the brain is still developing way beyond that. A twenty year old cannot consent the way a thirty year old can either, but the question isn't equal capacity it is sufficient capacity. And at what age that happens is NOT a determined set in stone libertarian principle. Age of consent has been debated since the beginning of the Party and we cannot simply by fiat declared it settled. It isn't. So when is sufficient capacity? It differs. My views are quite conservative and while I would not punish two young people who are both not sufficiently capable, I do think age disparaties are a huge issue but my view is not THE Libertarian view. Nor is it timeless. I think our affluent culture which allows us to extend adolescent and childhood plays a huge factor and that we simply don't raise our children to be sufficiently capable early. In other times they did. It was a necessity. Our being to not do so is a luxury but at what point does that conflict with biological urges? That is a question. While I think Arvin was nowhere near nuanced or clear on this, neither was it nuanced or clear that he was promoting anything contrary. He may disagree on a medical/scientific issue of when sufficient capability is reached but a disagreement on FACT doesn't make it a disagreement on a principle. I think he agrees that incapable people cannot give consent. THAT is the Libertarian principles, not some arbitrary labeling of "minor." I think the law has it about right most of the time, but that is not anything inherent in the law, it is the law recognizes reality. But I don't believe in set age of consent laws. I believe in a shifting presumption of incapability. === I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". === Sure they are. If they are not the ones committing the aggression there is no obligation to care about it. That makes them a bad person but it doesn't make them not a libertarian. Even our own platform recognizes this when it says that an inherent right does not create any obligation upon other people to fulfill that right, much less care if anyone does. A bad person =/= not libertarian. ==They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. === As an individualist philosophy not committing theft oneself is the bare requirement without which one is not libertarian. More is not required. Though more is more human. ==Which means they don't care about theft. === No it doesn't. It means they are emotionally stunted but there are no unassumed positive obligations in libertarianism. ==Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. === You are conflating not caring with saying it is okay. Saying it is okay is advocating force. Not caring is passive. There is a difference. And arguing Arvin crossed that line in his horrid welfare example but I think we don't jump to the absolute worst conclusion but likely somewhere in the middle. An unempathetic and recklessly poor messaging. I think being a political libertarian requires caring. Active caring. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. This isn't just about sex though, but medical procedures and other actions that may be perpetrated upon a person. If a person isn't giving informed consent, then the actions are aggression. You wrote: "But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others." I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. Which means they don't care about theft. Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. That's not being against theft. It's being against a situation. Libertarians aren't taking a stance against situations. We're taking a stance against actions. So, yes, I as a libertarian, reject aggression against ALL people. You don't need a philosophy to say "I don't want to do this or have it happen to me". That's just a personal preference. BEING a libertarian means you don't want OTHER people to commit aggression too. --- Elizabeth Van Horn On 2018-01-22 22:50, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Brutalism is a form of libertarianism. I reject it, but there is nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for others. It requires non-aggression. But when it comes to a political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable, and I think, necessary. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others. I think there is a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you. I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal right about it. Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas. Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say that he felt that was implied. It certainly wasn't enough for me nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators, and that is something we cannot have. But on the sheer face of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas. Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian. He implied it was emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the motion. He made what could be beautiful into something ugly. And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness. We as a party should be promoting the beautiful. And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note. One really obvious reason is right here. Me. Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof. Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves. I hope to be made much more after the Tucker model. I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1 states support but I am not voting on it at this time. As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty. Knowing then what I know now, yes I would have suggested. But one cannot backwards project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up. There is very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time. I think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now. I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these things. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[1][2]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote: I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [2][3]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3][4]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4][5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [5][6]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [6][7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[8]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 2. [9]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 3. mailto:[10]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [14]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [16]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 2. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 4. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 8. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 9. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 10. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 11. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Ack, plus I don't think you can prove that Arvin doesn't care about agression against others. I think it clear that he cares MORE about agression against himself. Is that unLibertarian? That brings in a whole other subset including proportionality, rightness or wrongness of "transfer of misery" (i.e. the classic can you shoot a human shield to stop someone from shooting you? - Block has a lot of good stuff on that) which is in the libertarian weeds and NOT settled. I firmly think you cannot transfer misery and therefore if there was a way to say well, I will choose for someone else to be raped so that I don't have to pay welfare, that would be unlibertarian. But there is no such choice, just like Rothbard's button does not exist. It is navel-gazing. He was more callously saying an "at least" statement - at least it could be interpreted that way. Honestly that is the statement that bothers me the most and is the one that tipped the scale for me. I am not going to get into a circular firing squad of parsing out the libertarian weeds to have a trial of philosophy because it is clear it was horrid messaging that in the BEST case scenario presented the ugly and selfish side, and not the attractive side. I think one can interpret it in the worst way and the best way, and that for a disciplinary action we need to find him wrong even in the best interpretation. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

ETA: Adult and minor are legal terms but they are shorthand for those in full custodianship of their rights, and those who are wards under the custodianship of others for all or part of their rights. That is how I believe the Platform is intended to be interpreted if we are to interpret it in the historical train of thought of past platforms which used the same wording. My mentally disabled aunt is a legal adult. She is not however in full custodianship of her own rights, at least not all of them.

A presumption of incapablity puts the burden of proof on those who would claim a development out of a state of incapability into capability. We all know that children are born incapable. That is a fact. I believe that fact remains true until it is shown otherwise, not automatic at some age. There are some 18 year olds that have not matured enough. The language of a clear path to emancipation that I think (I could be mistaken) that existed in old platforms is a much better solution. To me age of consent laws are rape laws, and we have rape laws, and they should be individually and rigourously prosecuted.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

...

===It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. ===

Of course.

== This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. ===

The word "minor" is a legal term that can change tomorrow. 18 is not a magical age in fact the brain is still developing way beyond that. A twenty year old cannot consent the way a thirty year old can either, but the question isn't equal capacity it is sufficient capacity. And at what age that happens is NOT a determined set in stone libertarian principle. Age of consent has been debated since the beginning of the Party and we cannot simply by fiat declared it settled. It isn't. So when is sufficient capacity? It differs. My views are quite conservative and while I would not punish two young people who are both not sufficiently capable, I do think age disparaties are a huge issue but my view is not THE Libertarian view. Nor is it timeless. I think our affluent culture which allows us to extend adolescent and childhood plays a huge factor and that we simply don't raise our children to be sufficiently capable early. In other times they did. It was a necessity. Our being to not do so is a luxury but at what point does that conflict with biological urges? That is a question. While I think Arvin was nowhere near nuanced or clear on this, neither was it nuanced or clear that he was promoting anything contrary. He may disagree on a medical/scientific issue of when sufficient capability is reached but a disagreement on FACT doesn't make it a disagreement on a principle. I think he agrees that incapable people cannot give consent. THAT is the Libertarian principles, not some arbitrary labeling of "minor." I think the law has it about right most of the time, but that is not anything inherent in the law, it is the law recognizes reality. But I don't believe in set age of consent laws. I believe in a shifting presumption of incapability.

=== I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". ===

Sure they are. If they are not the ones committing the aggression there is no obligation to care about it. That makes them a bad person but it doesn't make them not a libertarian. Even our own platform recognizes this when it says that an inherent right does not create any obligation upon other people to fulfill that right, much less care if anyone does. A bad person =/= not libertarian.

==They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. ===

As an individualist philosophy not committing theft oneself is the bare requirement without which one is not libertarian. More is not required. Though more is more human.

==Which means they don't care about theft. ===

No it doesn't. It means they are emotionally stunted but there are no unassumed positive obligations in libertarianism.

==Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. ===

You are conflating not caring with saying it is okay. Saying it is okay is advocating force. Not caring is passive. There is a difference. And arguing Arvin crossed that line in his horrid welfare example but I think we don't jump to the absolute worst conclusion but likely somewhere in the middle. An unempathetic and recklessly poor messaging.

I think being a political libertarian requires caring. Active caring.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn < elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:

...

Caryn Ann,

It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. This isn't just about sex though, but medical procedures and other actions that may be perpetrated upon a person. If a person isn't giving informed consent, then the actions are aggression.

You wrote: "But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others."

I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. Which means they don't care about theft. Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. That's not being against theft. It's being against a situation.

Libertarians aren't taking a stance against situations. We're taking a stance against actions. So, yes, I as a libertarian, reject aggression against ALL people. You don't need a philosophy to say "I don't want to do this or have it happen to me". That's just a personal preference. BEING a libertarian means you don't want OTHER people to commit aggression too.

--- Elizabeth Van Horn

On 2018-01-22 22:50, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

...

Brutalism is a form of libertarianism. I reject it, but there is nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for others. It requires non-aggression. But when it comes to a political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable, and I think, necessary. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others. I think there is a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you. I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal right about it. Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas. Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say that he felt that was implied. It certainly wasn't enough for me nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators, and that is something we cannot have. But on the sheer face of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas. Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian. He implied it was emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the motion. He made what could be beautiful into something ugly. And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness. We as a party should be promoting the beautiful. And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note. One really obvious reason is right here. Me. Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof. Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves. I hope to be made much more after the Tucker model. I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1 states support but I am not voting on it at this time. As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty. Knowing then what I know now, yes I would have suggested. But one cannot backwards project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up. There is very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time. I think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now. I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these things.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[1]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:

I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [2]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [5]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 2. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 3. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Ack, plus I don't think you can prove that Arvin doesn't care about agression against others. I think it clear that he cares MORE about agression against himself. Is that unLibertarian? That brings in a whole other subset including proportionality, rightness or wrongness of "transfer of misery" (i.e. the classic can you shoot a human shield to stop someone from shooting you? - Block has a lot of good stuff on that) which is in the libertarian weeds and NOT settled. I firmly think you cannot transfer misery and therefore if there was a way to say well, I will choose for someone else to be raped so that I don't have to pay welfare, that would be unlibertarian. But there is no such choice, just like Rothbard's button does not exist. It is navel-gazing. He was more callously saying an "at least" statement - at least it could be interpreted that way. Honestly that is the statement that bothers me the most and is the one that tipped the scale for me. I am not going to get into a circular firing squad of parsing out the libertarian weeds to have a trial of philosophy because it is clear it was horrid messaging that in the BEST case scenario presented the ugly and selfish side, and not the attractive side. I think one can interpret it in the worst way and the best way, and that for a disciplinary action we need to find him wrong even in the best interpretation. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: ETA: Adult and minor are legal terms but they are shorthand for those in full custodianship of their rights, and those who are wards under the custodianship of others for all or part of their rights. That is how I believe the Platform is intended to be interpreted if we are to interpret it in the historical train of thought of past platforms which used the same wording. My mentally disabled aunt is a legal adult. She is not however in full custodianship of her own rights, at least not all of them. A presumption of incapablity puts the burden of proof on those who would claim a development out of a state of incapability into capability. We all know that children are born incapable. That is a fact. I believe that fact remains true until it is shown otherwise, not automatic at some age. There are some 18 year olds that have not matured enough. The language of a clear path to emancipation that I think (I could be mistaken) that existed in old platforms is a much better solution. To me age of consent laws are rape laws, and we have rape laws, and they should be individually and rigourously prosecuted. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[2]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: ===It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. === Of course. == This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. === The word "minor" is a legal term that can change tomorrow. 18 is not a magical age in fact the brain is still developing way beyond that. A twenty year old cannot consent the way a thirty year old can either, but the question isn't equal capacity it is sufficient capacity. And at what age that happens is NOT a determined set in stone libertarian principle. Age of consent has been debated since the beginning of the Party and we cannot simply by fiat declared it settled. It isn't. So when is sufficient capacity? It differs. My views are quite conservative and while I would not punish two young people who are both not sufficiently capable, I do think age disparaties are a huge issue but my view is not THE Libertarian view. Nor is it timeless. I think our affluent culture which allows us to extend adolescent and childhood plays a huge factor and that we simply don't raise our children to be sufficiently capable early. In other times they did. It was a necessity. Our being to not do so is a luxury but at what point does that conflict with biological urges? That is a question. While I think Arvin was nowhere near nuanced or clear on this, neither was it nuanced or clear that he was promoting anything contrary. He may disagree on a medical/scientific issue of when sufficient capability is reached but a disagreement on FACT doesn't make it a disagreement on a principle. I think he agrees that incapable people cannot give consent. THAT is the Libertarian principles, not some arbitrary labeling of "minor." I think the law has it about right most of the time, but that is not anything inherent in the law, it is the law recognizes reality. But I don't believe in set age of consent laws. I believe in a shifting presumption of incapability. === I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". === Sure they are. If they are not the ones committing the aggression there is no obligation to care about it. That makes them a bad person but it doesn't make them not a libertarian. Even our own platform recognizes this when it says that an inherent right does not create any obligation upon other people to fulfill that right, much less care if anyone does. A bad person =/= not libertarian. ==They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. === As an individualist philosophy not committing theft oneself is the bare requirement without which one is not libertarian. More is not required. Though more is more human. ==Which means they don't care about theft. === No it doesn't. It means they are emotionally stunted but there are no unassumed positive obligations in libertarianism. ==Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. === You are conflating not caring with saying it is okay. Saying it is okay is advocating force. Not caring is passive. There is a difference. And arguing Arvin crossed that line in his horrid welfare example but I think we don't jump to the absolute worst conclusion but likely somewhere in the middle. An unempathetic and recklessly poor messaging. I think being a political libertarian requires caring. Active caring. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[3]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. This isn't just about sex though, but medical procedures and other actions that may be perpetrated upon a person. If a person isn't giving informed consent, then the actions are aggression. You wrote: "But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others." I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. Which means they don't care about theft. Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. That's not being against theft. It's being against a situation. Libertarians aren't taking a stance against situations. We're taking a stance against actions. So, yes, I as a libertarian, reject aggression against ALL people. You don't need a philosophy to say "I don't want to do this or have it happen to me". That's just a personal preference. BEING a libertarian means you don't want OTHER people to commit aggression too. --- Elizabeth Van Horn On 2018-01-22 22:50, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Brutalism is a form of libertarianism. I reject it, but there is nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for others. It requires non-aggression. But when it comes to a political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable, and I think, necessary. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others. I think there is a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you. I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal right about it. Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas. Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say that he felt that was implied. It certainly wasn't enough for me nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators, and that is something we cannot have. But on the sheer face of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas. Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian. He implied it was emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the motion. He made what could be beautiful into something ugly. And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness. We as a party should be promoting the beautiful. And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note. One really obvious reason is right here. Me. Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof. Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves. I hope to be made much more after the Tucker model. I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1 states support but I am not voting on it at this time. As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty. Knowing then what I know now, yes I would have suggested. But one cannot backwards project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up. There is very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time. I think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now. I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these things. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[1][4]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote: I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [2][5]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3][6]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4][7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [5][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[10]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 2. [11]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 3. mailto:[12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[14]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [16]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [18]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 4. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 6. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 10. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 11. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 18. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Well said, David. I could not agree more. --  Sean O’Toole Alternate Libertarian National Committee sean.otoole@lp.org (816) 739-2737 On January 23, 2018 at 7:18:43 AM, david.demarest@lp.org (david.demarest@lp.org) wrote: I am not a legal expert and do not base my philosophy on legal precedents. I operate under objective and empathetic moral law. Here is the nutshell of my non-legal-expert intuitive assessment of the Arvin Vohra 'moral case': One might have empathy for but no excuse to persecute those who think and act objectively but lack empathy. However, one should run the other direction from those who have empathy but lack objectivity. I would suggest that empathy without objectivity is all too often misguided, destructive and far worse than the lack of empathy. The horrific abuses of mankind have come not from those who lack empathy but from those who lack objectivity. Those abuses include mindless pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob witch-hunt persecution that even many statists have the sense to recognize. Most Americans, whether statist or Libertarian, do not look with pride on our history of burning 'witches' at the stake and lynching Negroes from lampposts. Arvin persecution should not be a source of pride for the Libertarian Party. I do not know Arvin well at a personal level. However, from his writings, Arvin's objectivity and empathy stand out like shining beacons. I would give Arvin high grades on both. I cannot say the same for Arvin's detractors. They may exhibit what they call empathy but fall considerably short on objectivity. Mindless pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob witch-hunt persecution does not strike me as anything remotely related to healthy empathy. 'Mindless' is the key word. Man's primary means of survival is his rational capacity for abstraction and objectivity. I expect Libertarians, of all people, to excel at objectivity. That is the true source of healthy empathy. Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians. However, she absolutely nailed the moral justification for laissez faire free-market capitalism, reason, objectivity, rational self-interest, and healthy empathy. The Libertarian Party was created in the spirit of Rand's credo of objectivity, reason, and rational self-interest. Has the Libertarian Party strayed from the moral compass of objectivity, reason, and rational self-interest? I never cease to be amazed at Libertarians who dismiss objectivity and reason in favor of emotion-based empathy "coming from the heart". That is pure unadulterated biological and philosophical nonsense that has the potential to produce horrific injustice, as we are witnessing in the persecution of Arvin Vohra. Arvin persecutors, it is time for a gut-check on your level of objectivity and reason. Then you will be in a better position to pontificate about empathy. On 2018-01-22 23:19, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Ack, plus I don't think you can prove that Arvin doesn't care about agression against others. I think it clear that he cares MORE about agression against himself. Is that unLibertarian? That brings in a whole other subset including proportionality, rightness or wrongness of "transfer of misery" (i.e. the classic can you shoot a human shield to stop someone from shooting you? - Block has a lot of good stuff on that) which is in the libertarian weeds and NOT settled. I firmly think you cannot transfer misery and therefore if there was a way to say well, I will choose for someone else to be raped so that I don't have to pay welfare, that would be unlibertarian. But there is no such choice, just like Rothbard's button does not exist. It is navel-gazing. He was more callously saying an "at least" statement - at least it could be interpreted that way. Honestly that is the statement that bothers me the most and is the one that tipped the scale for me. I am not going to get into a circular firing squad of parsing out the libertarian weeds to have a trial of philosophy because it is clear it was horrid messaging that in the BEST case scenario presented the ugly and selfish side, and not the attractive side. I think one can interpret it in the worst way and the best way, and that for a disciplinary action we need to find him wrong even in the best interpretation.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

ETA: Adult and minor are legal terms but they are shorthand for those in full custodianship of their rights, and those who are wards under the custodianship of others for all or part of their rights. That is how I believe the Platform is intended to be interpreted if we are to interpret it in the historical train of thought of past platforms which used the same wording. My mentally disabled aunt is a legal adult. She is not however in full custodianship of her own rights, at least not all of them. A presumption of incapablity puts the burden of proof on those who would claim a development out of a state of incapability into capability. We all know that children are born incapable. That is a fact. I believe that fact remains true until it is shown otherwise, not automatic at some age. There are some 18 year olds that have not matured enough. The language of a clear path to emancipation that I think (I could be mistaken) that existed in old platforms is a much better solution. To me age of consent laws are rape laws, and we have rape laws, and they should be individually and rigourously prosecuted.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[2]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

===It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. === Of course. == This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. === The word "minor" is a legal term that can change tomorrow. 18 is not a magical age in fact the brain is still developing way beyond that. A twenty year old cannot consent the way a thirty year old can either, but the question isn't equal capacity it is sufficient capacity. And at what age that happens is NOT a determined set in stone libertarian principle. Age of consent has been debated since the beginning of the Party and we cannot simply by fiat declared it settled. It isn't. So when is sufficient capacity? It differs. My views are quite conservative and while I would not punish two young people who are both not sufficiently capable, I do think age disparaties are a huge issue but my view is not THE Libertarian view. Nor is it timeless. I think our affluent culture which allows us to extend adolescent and childhood plays a huge factor and that we simply don't raise our children to be sufficiently capable early. In other times they did. It was a necessity. Our being to not do so is a luxury but at what point does that conflict with biological urges? That is a question. While I think Arvin was nowhere near nuanced or clear on this, neither was it nuanced or clear that he was promoting anything contrary. He may disagree on a medical/scientific issue of when sufficient capability is reached but a disagreement on FACT doesn't make it a disagreement on a principle. I think he agrees that incapable people cannot give consent. THAT is the Libertarian principles, not some arbitrary labeling of "minor." I think the law has it about right most of the time, but that is not anything inherent in the law, it is the law recognizes reality. But I don't believe in set age of consent laws. I believe in a shifting presumption of incapability. === I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". === Sure they are. If they are not the ones committing the aggression there is no obligation to care about it. That makes them a bad person but it doesn't make them not a libertarian. Even our own platform recognizes this when it says that an inherent right does not create any obligation upon other people to fulfill that right, much less care if anyone does. A bad person =/= not libertarian. ==They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. === As an individualist philosophy not committing theft oneself is the bare requirement without which one is not libertarian. More is not required. Though more is more human. ==Which means they don't care about theft. === No it doesn't. It means they are emotionally stunted but there are no unassumed positive obligations in libertarianism. ==Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. === You are conflating not caring with saying it is okay. Saying it is okay is advocating force. Not caring is passive. There is a difference. And arguing Arvin crossed that line in his horrid welfare example but I think we don't jump to the absolute worst conclusion but likely somewhere in the middle. An unempathetic and recklessly poor messaging. I think being a political libertarian requires caring. Active caring.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[3]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:

Caryn Ann, It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. This isn't just about sex though, but medical procedures and other actions that may be perpetrated upon a person. If a person isn't giving informed consent, then the actions are aggression. You wrote: "But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others." I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. Which means they don't care about theft. Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. That's not being against theft. It's being against a situation. Libertarians aren't taking a stance against situations. We're taking a stance against actions. So, yes, I as a libertarian, reject aggression against ALL people. You don't need a philosophy to say "I don't want to do this or have it happen to me". That's just a personal preference. BEING a libertarian means you don't want OTHER people to commit aggression too. --- Elizabeth Van Horn

On 2018-01-22 22:50, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Brutalism is a form of libertarianism. I reject it, but there is nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for others. It requires non-aggression. But when it comes to a political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable, and I think, necessary. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others. I think there is a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you. I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal right about it. Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas. Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say that he felt that was implied. It certainly wasn't enough for me nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators, and that is something we cannot have. But on the sheer face of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas. Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian. He implied it was emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the motion. He made what could be beautiful into something ugly. And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness. We as a party should be promoting the beautiful. And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note. One really obvious reason is right here. Me. Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof. Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves. I hope to be made much more after the Tucker model. I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1 states support but I am not voting on it at this time. As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty. Knowing then what I know now, yes I would have suggested. But one cannot backwards project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up. There is very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time. I think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now. I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these things. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn

<[1][4]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote: I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus

[2][5]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3][6]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4][7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [5][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[10]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 2. [11]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 3. mailto:[12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[14]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [16]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [18]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 4. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 6. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 10. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 11. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 18. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business Well said, David. I could not agree more. -- Sean O’Toole Alternate Libertarian National Committee [1]sean.otoole@lp.org (816) 739-2737 On January 23, 2018 at 7:18:43 AM, david.demarest@lp.org ([2]david.demarest@lp.org) wrote: I am not a legal expert and do not base my philosophy on legal precedents. I operate under objective and empathetic moral law. Here is the nutshell of my non-legal-expert intuitive assessment of the Arvin Vohra 'moral case': One might have empathy for but no excuse to persecute those who think and act objectively but lack empathy. However, one should run the other direction from those who have empathy but lack objectivity. I would suggest that empathy without objectivity is all too often misguided, destructive and far worse than the lack of empathy. The horrific abuses of mankind have come not from those who lack empathy but from those who lack objectivity. Those abuses include mindless pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob witch-hunt persecution that even many statists have the sense to recognize. Most Americans, whether statist or Libertarian, do not look with pride on our history of burning 'witches' at the stake and lynching Negroes from lampposts. Arvin persecution should not be a source of pride for the Libertarian Party. I do not know Arvin well at a personal level. However, from his writings, Arvin's objectivity and empathy stand out like shining beacons. I would give Arvin high grades on both. I cannot say the same for Arvin's detractors. They may exhibit what they call empathy but fall considerably short on objectivity. Mindless pile-on bandwagon lynch-mob witch-hunt persecution does not strike me as anything remotely related to healthy empathy. 'Mindless' is the key word. Man's primary means of survival is his rational capacity for abstraction and objectivity. I expect Libertarians, of all people, to excel at objectivity. That is the true source of healthy empathy. Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians. However, she absolutely nailed the moral justification for laissez faire free-market capitalism, reason, objectivity, rational self-interest, and healthy empathy. The Libertarian Party was created in the spirit of Rand's credo of objectivity, reason, and rational self-interest. Has the Libertarian Party strayed from the moral compass of objectivity, reason, and rational self-interest? I never cease to be amazed at Libertarians who dismiss objectivity and reason in favor of emotion-based empathy "coming from the heart". That is pure unadulterated biological and philosophical nonsense that has the potential to produce horrific injustice, as we are witnessing in the persecution of Arvin Vohra. Arvin persecutors, it is time for a gut-check on your level of objectivity and reason. Then you will be in a better position to pontificate about empathy. On 2018-01-22 23:19, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Ack, plus I don't think you can prove that Arvin doesn't care about agression against others. I think it clear that he cares MORE about agression against himself. Is that unLibertarian? That brings in a whole other subset including proportionality, rightness or wrongness of "transfer of misery" (i.e. the classic can you shoot a human shield to stop someone from shooting you? - Block has a lot of good stuff on that) which is in the libertarian weeds and NOT settled. I firmly think you cannot transfer misery and therefore if there was a way to say well, I will choose for someone else to be raped so that I don't have to pay welfare, that would be unlibertarian. But there is no such choice, just like Rothbard's button does not exist. It is navel-gazing. He was more callously saying an "at least" statement - at least it could be interpreted that way. Honestly that is the statement that bothers me the most and is the one that tipped the scale for me. I am not going to get into a circular firing squad of parsing out the libertarian weeds to have a trial of philosophy because it is clear it was horrid messaging that in the BEST case scenario presented the ugly and selfish side, and not the attractive side. I think one can interpret it in the worst way and the best way, and that for a disciplinary action we need to find him wrong even in the best interpretation.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

ETA: Adult and minor are legal terms but they are shorthand for those in full custodianship of their rights, and those who are wards under the custodianship of others for all or part of their rights. That is how I believe the Platform is intended to be interpreted if we are to interpret it in the historical train of thought of past platforms which used the same wording. My mentally disabled aunt is a legal adult. She is not however in full custodianship of her own rights, at least not all of them. A presumption of incapablity puts the burden of proof on those who would claim a development out of a state of incapability into capability. We all know that children are born incapable. That is a fact. I believe that fact remains true until it is shown otherwise, not automatic at some age. There are some 18 year olds that have not matured enough. The language of a clear path to emancipation that I think (I could be mistaken) that existed in old platforms is a much better solution. To me age of consent laws are rape laws, and we have rape laws, and they should be individually and rigourously prosecuted.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[2]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

===It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. === Of course. == This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. === The word "minor" is a legal term that can change tomorrow. 18 is not a magical age in fact the brain is still developing way beyond that. A twenty year old cannot consent the way a thirty year old can either, but the question isn't equal capacity it is sufficient capacity. And at what age that happens is NOT a determined set in stone libertarian principle. Age of consent has been debated since the beginning of the Party and we cannot simply by fiat declared it settled. It isn't. So when is sufficient capacity? It differs. My views are quite conservative and while I would not punish two young people who are both not sufficiently capable, I do think age disparaties are a huge issue but my view is not THE Libertarian view. Nor is it timeless. I think our affluent culture which allows us to extend adolescent and childhood plays a huge factor and that we simply don't raise our children to be sufficiently capable early. In other times they did. It was a necessity. Our being to not do so is a luxury but at what point does that conflict with biological urges? That is a question. While I think Arvin was nowhere near nuanced or clear on this, neither was it nuanced or clear that he was promoting anything contrary. He may disagree on a medical/scientific issue of when sufficient capability is reached but a disagreement on FACT doesn't make it a disagreement on a principle. I think he agrees that incapable people cannot give consent. THAT is the Libertarian principles, not some arbitrary labeling of "minor." I think the law has it about right most of the time, but that is not anything inherent in the law, it is the law recognizes reality. But I don't believe in set age of consent laws. I believe in a shifting presumption of incapability. === I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". === Sure they are. If they are not the ones committing the aggression there is no obligation to care about it. That makes them a bad person but it doesn't make them not a libertarian. Even our own platform recognizes this when it says that an inherent right does not create any obligation upon other people to fulfill that right, much less care if anyone does. A bad person =/= not libertarian. ==They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. === As an individualist philosophy not committing theft oneself is the bare requirement without which one is not libertarian. More is not required. Though more is more human. ==Which means they don't care about theft. === No it doesn't. It means they are emotionally stunted but there are no unassumed positive obligations in libertarianism. ==Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. === You are conflating not caring with saying it is okay. Saying it is okay is advocating force. Not caring is passive. There is a difference. And arguing Arvin crossed that line in his horrid welfare example but I think we don't jump to the absolute worst conclusion but likely somewhere in the middle. An unempathetic and recklessly poor messaging. I think being a political libertarian requires caring. Active caring.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn <[3]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote:

Caryn Ann, It's about informed consent. The concept that people are able to consent to actions involving them, otherwise, the actions are aggression. One can't give informed consent if they're under the influence of certain drugs, alcohol, have a mental impairment, or otherwise diminished ability to reason. This is also true of minors, as they're not able to discern the way adults can. This isn't just about sex though, but medical procedures and other actions that may be perpetrated upon a person. If a person isn't giving informed consent, then the actions are aggression. You wrote: "But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others." I disagree. If one only cares about force perpetrated against themselves, and not others, then they're not for "non-aggression". They're for a self-serving situational stance. It's like saying one is against theft. But, they don't care if others commit theft. Which means they don't care about theft. Or, as long as they aren't robbed and do no robbing, it's ok if others do. That's not being against theft. It's being against a situation. Libertarians aren't taking a stance against situations. We're taking a stance against actions. So, yes, I as a libertarian, reject aggression against ALL people. You don't need a philosophy to say "I don't want to do this or have it happen to me". That's just a personal preference. BEING a libertarian means you don't want OTHER people to commit aggression too. --- Elizabeth Van Horn

On 2018-01-22 22:50, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Brutalism is a form of libertarianism. I reject it, but there is nothing inherent in libertarianism qua libertarianism that requires care for others. It requires non-aggression. But when it comes to a political party, a certain element of thickness (in this case empathy) is inevitable, and I think, necessary. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying all one cares about is force against them. There is no positive obligation to care about others. I think there is a moral one and political libertarianism has to be more than about raw philosophy - it has to show a way to promote flourishing without force, not a rank I got mine, and tough luck for you. I think you have posited a false dichotomy and the original motion has a great deal right about it. Freedom of association, for instance, does entail the possibility of peaceful racists - and those are technically within libertarianism - but that is not a vision that most people share, nor should they, and it is not a vision that should be put forth as morally equal to cosmopolitan ideas. Where Arvin went off into non-libertarian things is when the very real concepts of inherent issues with age and consent were denied at worst (in fact, called stupid) but he could say that he felt that was implied. It certainly wasn't enough for me nor for others (not the near hysteria that has arisen but amongst thoughtful critics) that the door was not potentially open for predators, and that is something we cannot have. But on the sheer face of it, he could state he was espousing libertarian brutalist ideas. Tucker didn't deny brutalism was libertarian. He implied it was emotionally stunted and yes selfish but it is not unlibertarian to be selfish, it is morally lacking and generally unattractive. So I see all arguments, but the way the most of the states at least here had seen it was as described in the motion. He made what could be beautiful into something ugly. And freedom entails both the possibility of beauty and that of ugliness. We as a party should be promoting the beautiful. And I think it quite apparent that this cannot be a minarchist/anarchist thing as you correctly note. One really obvious reason is right here. Me. Unless anyone wants to deny I am an anarchist (and that certainly happens regularly enough) then I am the immediate disproof. Anarchism =/= brutalism as Tucker (though a nonLP example) also proves. I hope to be made much more after the Tucker model. I don't think the censure will accomplish anything but so far Region 1 states support but I am not voting on it at this time. As well as too late, hindsight is twenty-twenty. Knowing then what I know now, yes I would have suggested. But one cannot backwards project, and I think at the time the right decisions were made but Arvin had no desire for peace and closure but to ratchet up. There is very little to be done about that without knowing it ahead of time. I think the statement resolution made at the time was the right thing but it is beyond that now. I am really torn on the censure but at least it would give some cover to our candidates who are the ones really having their neck out on these things. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Elizabeth Van Horn

<[1][4]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org> wrote: I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus

[2][5]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [3][6]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [4][7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [5][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[10]elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 2. [11]http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 3. mailto:[12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[14]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [16]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [18]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 4. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 5. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 6. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 10. mailto:elizabeth.vanhorn@lp.org 11. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 18. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:sean.otoole@lp.org 2. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

I vote "Yes" on the Vohra censure. Bill Redpath On 2018-01-22 22:29, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:

I vote no. ----------------

I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold:

1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself.

Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility.

2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound.

--- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus http://www.lpcaucus.org/

On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:

...

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

---

Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Yes On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ed Marsh <ed.marsh@lp.org> wrote:

I vote NO on e-mail 2018-3 Ed Marsh Region 2 Rep (Florida,Georgia, Tennessee) Sent from my iPhone

...

On Jan 23, 2018, at 11:07 AM, William Redpath <william.redpath@lp.org> wrote:

I vote "Yes" on the Vohra censure. Bill Redpath

...

On 2018-01-22 22:29, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote: I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus http://www.lpcaucus.org/

...

On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

---

Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

---

Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Yes On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Ed Marsh <[1]ed.marsh@lp.org> wrote: I vote NO on e-mail 2018-3 Ed Marsh Region 2 Rep (Florida,Georgia, Tennessee) Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 23, 2018, at 11:07 AM, William Redpath <[2]william.redpath@lp.org> wrote:

I vote "Yes" on the Vohra censure. Bill Redpath

...

On 2018-01-22 22:29, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote: I vote no. ---------------- I might have voted in favor of the original censure motion by Jeff Hewitt. This recent censure motion isn't acceptable to me, as I disagree that Arvin was indeed espousing libertarian ideas. My objections are twofold: 1) Libertarianism is not simply caring about ones own freedoms. It is caring about freedom for EVERYONE. Believing that YOU should be free from coercion, and believing that PEOPLE should be free from coercion, are two different ideas. One is selfishness, the other is libertarianism. Arvin's principle does not include concern for the freedom of others, it is primarily concerned with the impact it has on him. If you are more concerned with money being taken from you than with the safety of children, then your concern isn't about freedom. It's about yourself. Arvin wasn't espousing libertarian ideas. Instead it was a form of ideological brutalism, which is well described by known libertarian anarchist, Jeffrey Tucker. I reject the notion that this is an anarchist stance versus minarchists. Instead it is a brutalization of libertarianism to become an abdication of responsibility. 2) The censure is too little too late. It's a band-aid for an gaping wound. --- Elizabeth Van Horn LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY) Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus [3]http://www.lpcaucus.org/

...

On 2018-01-20 22:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [4]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

---

Lnc-business mailing list [6]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

---

Lnc-business mailing list [8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Lnc-business mailing list [10]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [11]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:ed.marsh@lp.org 2. mailto:william.redpath@lp.org 3. http://www.lpcaucus.org/ 4. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 10. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 11. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote:

I have to vote no. As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. -Alicia

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <[1]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

References

1. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

I will also change my vote to a “NO”. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 29, 2018, at 2:27 PM, William Redpath <william.redpath@lp.org> wrote:

After giving this some thought, I will also change my vote to "No" on this motion. Bill Redpath

...

On 2018-01-29 15:19, Sam Goldstein wrote: Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell

...

On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: I have to vote no. As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. -Alicia On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <[1]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia References 1. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs. My opinion. I don’t care if I’m the sole yes. I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord. And we bought it hook line and sinker. Literally shaking my head. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want.

I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.

However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates.

This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying.

It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO.

Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.

I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.

The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test.

Which I find so ironic.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote:

...

Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP.

--- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell

On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote:

...

I have to vote no. As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, however, I cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. -Alicia

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson <[1]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

References

1. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs. My opinion. I don’t care if I’m the sole yes. I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord. And we bought it hook line and sinker. Literally shaking my head. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want. I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision. However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates. This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying. It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO. Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it. I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test. Which I find so ironic. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <[2]sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote: Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

This is what I sent to my region one chairs: Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been privy to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this because it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which obviously is in direct response to this situation. The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed their vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same - you can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted on the state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an asshole works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I suspect that is not what many of you signed up for either. My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons. I suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from counsel from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure motion as it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want to claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think some were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret the Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle. Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an ideological dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and proper conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of region 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what he said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and - that is nakedly a factional issue. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1 will come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my instructions, but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my instructions. My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand. *Issue your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC is not capable of doing anything about this situation. * I say this with regret. I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest and for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national party too much, that has also been my position, and remains so. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <erin.adams@lp.org> wrote:

I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion to censure should have been made some time ago imo

On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

...

So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs.

My opinion.

I don’t care if I’m the sole yes.

I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord.

And we bought it hook line and sinker.

Literally shaking my head.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want.

I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.

However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates.

This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying.

It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO.

Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.

I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.

The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test.

Which I find so ironic.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <[2]sam.goldstein@lp.org

...

wrote:

Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4]agmattson@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

This is what I sent to my region one chairs: Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been privy to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this because it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which obviously is in direct response to this situation. The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed their vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same - you can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted on the state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an asshole works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I suspect that is not what many of you signed up for either. My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons. I suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from counsel from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure motion as it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want to claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think some were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret the Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle. Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an ideological dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and proper conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of region 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what he said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and - that is nakedly a factional issue. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1 will come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my instructions, but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my instructions. My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand. Issue your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC is not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this with regret. I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest and for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national party too much, that has also been my position, and remains so. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1]erin.adams@lp.org> wrote: I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion to censure should have been made some time ago imo On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs. My opinion. I don’t care if I’m the sole yes. I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord. And we bought it hook line and sinker. Literally shaking my head. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want. I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision. However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates. This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying. It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO. Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it. I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test. Which I find so ironic. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <[2][3]sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote: Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee [4]317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3][5]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4][6]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[7]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[8]sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:[9]agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:[10]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 4. tel:317-850-0726 5. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

My statement to region 1 members: https://www.facebook.com/notes/caryn-ann-harlos-libertarian-activist/the-lat... On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

PS The national party owes both Trump and Roy Moore an apology. We don't live up to our standards for criticisms.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org

...

wrote:

...

This is what I sent to my region one chairs:

Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been privy to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this because it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which obviously is in direct response to this situation.

The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed their vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same - you can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted on the state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an asshole works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I suspect that is not what many of you signed up for either.

My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons. I suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from counsel from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure motion as it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want to claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think some were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret the Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle. Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an ideological dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and proper conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of region 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what he said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and - that is nakedly a factional issue.

The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1 will come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my instructions, but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my instructions.

My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand. *Issue your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC is not capable of doing anything about this situation. * I say this with regret.

I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest and for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national party too much, that has also been my position, and remains so.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <erin.adams@lp.org> wrote:

...

I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion to censure should have been made some time ago imo

On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

...

So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs.

My opinion.

I don’t care if I’m the sole yes.

I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord.

And we bought it hook line and sinker.

Literally shaking my head.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want.

I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision.

However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates.

This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying.

It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO.

Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it.

I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly.

The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test.

Which I find so ironic.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <[2] sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote:

Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee 317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4]agmattson@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

My statement to region 1 members: [1]https://www.facebook.com/notes/caryn-ann-harlos-libertarian-activist /the-latest-in-as-the-lnc-turns/358562167886733/ On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[2]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: PS The national party owes both Trump and Roy Moore an apology. We don't live up to our standards for criticisms. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[3]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: This is what I sent to my region one chairs: Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been privy to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this because it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which obviously is in direct response to this situation. The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed their vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same - you can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted on the state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an asshole works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I suspect that is not what many of you signed up for either. My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons. I suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from counsel from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure motion as it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want to claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think some were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret the Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle. Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an ideological dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and proper conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of region 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what he said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and - that is nakedly a factional issue. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1 will come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my instructions, but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my instructions. My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand. Issue your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC is not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this with regret. I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest and for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national party too much, that has also been my position, and remains so. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[4]erin.adams@lp.org> wrote: I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion to censure should have been made some time ago imo On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs. My opinion. I don’t care if I’m the sole yes. I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord. And we bought it hook line and sinker. Literally shaking my head. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][5]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want. I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision. However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates. This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying. It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO. Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it. I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test. Which I find so ironic. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <[2][6]sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote: Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee [7]317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3][8]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4][9]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[10]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[11]sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:[12]agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:[13]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. https://www.facebook.com/notes/caryn-ann-harlos-libertarian-activist/the-lat... 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 4. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 6. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 7. tel:317-850-0726 8. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 9. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 11. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 12. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 13. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

Alicia-- == I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this, as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to focus on and accomplish.== I'm done as well. But you deserve the respect of a response. == However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.== I don't have a pendulum. I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations can determine. == Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair.=== It is my judgment. I am here to do that and report to my constituents who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind. I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment is pretty on point here. Additional data can change it. It is not presumptuous, it is my job. One constant refrain from me from day one is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1. == A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).=== I didn't say it was. I know you want at least that. You know I want at least that. But that is just you and me. There is not a majority that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious. And disappointing. == It is the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a purity test...?=== It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE. I have some non-libertarian ideas according to many. That is not this body's concern. But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light, that is this body's concern. I am pro-life. The Party is not. I can present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be concerned about that. And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style. He neglected to add very important nuance. Does he deny that nuance? Or was he just a terrible communicator? I don't know, and we can't know. And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain of truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other people that it is inappropriate for a leader. It is like a a racist bragging about his "white only" sign. Is that anti-libertarian qua libertarian? No, he has the right to do that. But it is anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person. Is it unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it? No. But it is a hard callous cold brutalism. The minute we start trying to parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests. There is only ONE thing we know for certain. That he HAS presented Libertarian ideas in a foul way. Separating the two is up to delegates in Platform. Not us. == There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.== Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs. They ask me to. They elected me for my advise. They often disagree. But it is my duty to them to tell them what MY judgment is. But I FOLLOW theirs. This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this Body will do nothing. I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet mastering of this body. He is telling us to jump and we are saying how high. I am tired of it. He is reveling in this jerking us around and I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that. You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen. Can I be wrong? Obviously. I thought the regional chairs would not support suspension. And they did. But this is coming up on a month with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the affiliates need to take more control. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote:

Caryn Ann, I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this, as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to focus on and accomplish. However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes. Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair. A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that). It is the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a purity test...? There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face. -Alicia

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

This is what I sent to my region one chairs: Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been privy to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this because it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which obviously is in direct response to this situation. The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed their vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same - you can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted on the state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an asshole works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I suspect that is not what many of you signed up for either. My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons. I suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from counsel from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure motion as it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want to claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think some were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret the Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle. Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an ideological dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and proper conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of region 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what he said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and - that is nakedly a factional issue. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1 will come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my instructions, but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my instructions. My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand. Issue your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC is not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this with regret. I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest and for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national party too much, that has also been my position, and remains so. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2]erin.adams@lp.org> wrote: I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion to censure should have been made some time ago imo On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs. My opinion. I don’t care if I’m the sole yes. I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord. And we bought it hook line and sinker. Literally shaking my head. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos

<[1][2][3]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want. I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision. However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates. This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying. It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO. Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it. I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test. Which I find so ironic. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein

<[2][3][4]sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote: Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee [4]317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3][5][5]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4][6][6]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[7][7]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[8][8]sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:[9][9]agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:[10][10]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[11]erin.adams@lp.org 2. mailto:[12]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:[13]sam.goldstein@lp.org 4. tel:[14]317-850-0726 5. mailto:[15]agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:[16]agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:[17]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:[18]sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:[19]agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:[20]agmattson@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 4. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 5. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 11. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 12. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 13. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 14. tel:317-850-0726 15. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 16. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 17. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 18. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 19. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 20. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

Alicia-- == I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this, as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to focus on and accomplish.== I'm done as well. But you deserve the respect of a response. == However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.== I don't have a pendulum. I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations can determine. == Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair.=== It is my judgment. I am here to do that and report to my constituents who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind. I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment is pretty on point here. Additional data can change it. It is not presumptuous, it is my job. One constant refrain from me from day one is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1. == A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).=== I didn't say it was. I know you want at least that. You know I want at least that. But that is just you and me. There is not a majority that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious. And disappointing. == It is the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a purity test...?=== It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE. I have some non-libertarian ideas according to many. That is not this body's concern. But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light, that is this body's concern. I am pro-life. The Party is not. I can present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be concerned about that. And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style. He neglected to add very important nuance. Does he deny that nuance? Or was he just a terrible communicator? I don't know, and we can't know. And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain of truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other people that it is inappropriate for a leader. It is like a a racist bragging about his "white only" sign. Is that anti-libertarian qua libertarian? No, he has the right to do that. But it is anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person. Is it unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it? No. But it is a hard callous cold brutalism. The minute we start trying to parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests. There is only ONE thing we know for certain. That he HAS presented Libertarian ideas in a foul way. Separating the two is up to delegates in Platform. Not us. == There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.== Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs. They ask me to. They elected me for my advise. They often disagree. But it is my duty to them to tell them what MY judgment is. But I FOLLOW theirs. This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this Body will do nothing. I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet mastering of this body. He is telling us to jump and we are saying how high. I am tired of it. He is reveling in this jerking us around and I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that. You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen. Can I be wrong? Obviously. I thought the regional chairs would not support suspension. And they did. But this is coming up on a month with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the affiliates need to take more control. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson <[1]alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this, as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to focus on and accomplish. However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes. Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair. A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that). It is the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a purity test...? There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face. -Alicia On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: This is what I sent to my region one chairs: Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been privy to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this because it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which obviously is in direct response to this situation. The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed their vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same - you can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted on the state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an asshole works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I suspect that is not what many of you signed up for either. My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons. I suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from counsel from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure motion as it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want to claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think some were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret the Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle. Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an ideological dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and proper conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of region 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what he said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and - that is nakedly a factional issue. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1 will come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my instructions, but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my instructions. My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand. Issue your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC is not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this with regret. I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest and for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national party too much, that has also been my position, and remains so. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2][3]erin.adams@lp.org> wrote: I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion to censure should have been made some time ago imo On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs. My opinion. I don’t care if I’m the sole yes. I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord. And we bought it hook line and sinker. Literally shaking my head. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][2][3][4]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want. I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision. However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates. This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying. It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO. Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it. I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test. Which I find so ironic. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <[2][3][4][5]sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote: Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee [4]317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3][5][5][6]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4][6][6][7]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[7][7][8]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[8][8][9]sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:[9][9][10]agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:[10][10][11]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[11][12]erin.adams@lp.org 2. mailto:[12][13]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:[13][14]sam.goldstein@lp.org 4. tel:[14]317-850-0726 5. mailto:[15][15]agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:[16][16]agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:[17][17]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:[18][18]sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:[19][19]agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:[20][20]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[21]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[22]erin.adams@lp.org 3. mailto:[23]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 4. mailto:[24]sam.goldstein@lp.org 5. mailto:[25]agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:[26]agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:[27]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:[28]sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:[29]agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:[30]agmattson@gmail.com 11. mailto:[31]erin.adams@lp.org 12. mailto:[32]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 13. mailto:[33]sam.goldstein@lp.org 14. tel:[34]317-850-0726 15. mailto:[35]agmattson@gmail.com 16. mailto:[36]agmattson@gmail.com 17. mailto:[37]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 18. mailto:[38]sam.goldstein@lp.org 19. mailto:[39]agmattson@gmail.com 20. mailto:[40]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:alicia.mattson@lp.org 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 5. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 6. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 8. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 9. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 10. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 11. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 12. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 13. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 14. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 15. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 16. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 17. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 18. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 19. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 20. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 21. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 22. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 23. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 24. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 25. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 26. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 27. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 28. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 29. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 30. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 31. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 32. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 33. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 34. tel:317-850-0726 35. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 36. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 37. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 38. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 39. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 40. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

Yes. Whitney Bilyeu On Jan 29, 2018 5:18 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: ;tldr the motion says something we can ALL agree on. He has presented Libertarian ideas in the worst possible way. It doesn't claim all of his ideas were. It says the one fact that we do have an authority to say. That is why I say anything else is a purity test. In all directions - radical, moderate, pragmatic, classical liberal or whatever the factions de jeur are. This was never a PM issue and the complaint that made it that way ironically sunk this whole effort. My yes votes remain. I believe in them, and it is my position. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: Alicia-- == I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this, as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to focus on and accomplish.== I'm done as well. But you deserve the respect of a response. == However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.== I don't have a pendulum. I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations can determine. == Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair.=== It is my judgment. I am here to do that and report to my constituents who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind. I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment is pretty on point here. Additional data can change it. It is not presumptuous, it is my job. One constant refrain from me from day one is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1. == A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).=== I didn't say it was. I know you want at least that. You know I want at least that. But that is just you and me. There is not a majority that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious. And disappointing. == It is the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a purity test...?=== It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE. I have some non-libertarian ideas according to many. That is not this body's concern. But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light, that is this body's concern. I am pro-life. The Party is not. I can present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be concerned about that. And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style. He neglected to add very important nuance. Does he deny that nuance? Or was he just a terrible communicator? I don't know, and we can't know. And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain of truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other people that it is inappropriate for a leader. It is like a a racist bragging about his "white only" sign. Is that anti-libertarian qua libertarian? No, he has the right to do that. But it is anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person. Is it unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it? No. But it is a hard callous cold brutalism. The minute we start trying to parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests. There is only ONE thing we know for certain. That he HAS presented Libertarian ideas in a foul way. Separating the two is up to delegates in Platform. Not us. == There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.== Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs. They ask me to. They elected me for my advise. They often disagree. But it is my duty to them to tell them what MY judgment is. But I FOLLOW theirs. This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this Body will do nothing. I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet mastering of this body. He is telling us to jump and we are saying how high. I am tired of it. He is reveling in this jerking us around and I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that. You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen. Can I be wrong? Obviously. I thought the regional chairs would not support suspension. And they did. But this is coming up on a month with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the affiliates need to take more control. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson <[2]alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this, as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to focus on and accomplish. However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes. Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair. A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that). It is the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a purity test...? There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face. -Alicia On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][3]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: This is what I sent to my region one chairs: Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been privy to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this because it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which obviously is in direct response to this situation. The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed their vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same - you can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted on the state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an asshole works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I suspect that is not what many of you signed up for either. My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons. I suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from counsel from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure motion as it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want to claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think some were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret the Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle. Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an ideological dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and proper conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of region 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what he said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and - that is nakedly a factional issue. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1 will come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my instructions, but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my instructions. My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand. Issue your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC is not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this with regret. I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest and for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national party too much, that has also been my position, and remains so. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2][4]erin.adams@lp.org> wrote: I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion to censure should have been made some time ago imo On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs. My opinion. I don’t care if I’m the sole yes. I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord. And we bought it hook line and sinker. Literally shaking my head. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][2][3][5]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want. I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision. However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates. This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying. It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO. Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it. I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test. Which I find so ironic. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <[2][3][4][6]sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote: Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee [4]317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3][5][5][7]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4][6][6][8]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[7][7][9]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[8][8][10]sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:[9][9][11]agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:[10][10][12]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[11][13]erin.adams@lp.org 2. mailto:[12][14]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:[13][15]sam.goldstein@lp.org 4. tel:[14]317-850-0726 5. mailto:[15][16]agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:[16][17]agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:[17][18]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:[18][19]sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:[19][20]agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:[20][21]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[22]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[23]erin.adams@lp.org 3. mailto:[24]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 4. mailto:[25]sam.goldstein@lp.org 5. mailto:[26]agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:[27]agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:[28]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:[29]sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:[30]agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:[31]agmattson@gmail.com 11. mailto:[32]erin.adams@lp.org 12. mailto:[33]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 13. mailto:[34]sam.goldstein@lp.org 14. tel:[35]317-850-0726 15. mailto:[36]agmattson@gmail.com 16. mailto:[37]agmattson@gmail.com 17. mailto:[38]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 18. mailto:[39]sam.goldstein@lp.org 19. mailto:[40]agmattson@gmail.com 20. mailto:[41]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:alicia.mattson@lp.org 3. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 4. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 6. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 7. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 8. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 9. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 10. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 11. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 12. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 13. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 14. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 15. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 16. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 17. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 18. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 19. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 20. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 21. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 22. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 23. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 24. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 25. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 26. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 27. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 28. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 29. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 30. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 31. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 32. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 33. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 34. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 35. tel:317-850-0726 36. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 37. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 38. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 39. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 40. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 41. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com Yes. Whitney Bilyeu On Jan 29, 2018 5:18 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: ;tldr the motion says something we can ALL agree on. He has presented Libertarian ideas in the worst possible way. It doesn't claim all of his ideas were. It says the one fact that we do have an authority to say. That is why I say anything else is a purity test. In all directions - radical, moderate, pragmatic, classical liberal or whatever the factions de jeur are. This was never a PM issue and the complaint that made it that way ironically sunk this whole effort. My yes votes remain. I believe in them, and it is my position. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][2]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: Alicia-- == I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this, as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to focus on and accomplish.== I'm done as well. But you deserve the respect of a response. == However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes.== I don't have a pendulum. I have been steadfastly in the EXACT SAME PLACE since day one which anyone reading my long-winded explanations can determine. == Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair.=== It is my judgment. I am here to do that and report to my constituents who often disagree, offer additional perspectives, and change my mind. I have watched the discussions since day one, and I believe my judgment is pretty on point here. Additional data can change it. It is not presumptuous, it is my job. One constant refrain from me from day one is that MY DUTY IS TO REGION 1. == A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that).=== I didn't say it was. I know you want at least that. You know I want at least that. But that is just you and me. There is not a majority that wants any kind of acceptable censure and that is obvious. And disappointing. == It is the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a purity test...?=== It is, because our concern should be about the ones that WERE. I have some non-libertarian ideas according to many. That is not this body's concern. But if I am presenting LIBERTARIAN ones in a very bad light, that is this body's concern. I am pro-life. The Party is not. I can present pro-life ideas in a bad way and you guys should not be concerned about that. And Arvin's "non-libertarian" content could be due to the limitations of FB in which long treatises aren't the style. He neglected to add very important nuance. Does he deny that nuance? Or was he just a terrible communicator? I don't know, and we can't know. And his worst comment about ending welfare did have a grain of truth to it but it betrayed such callous indifference to other people that it is inappropriate for a leader. It is like a a racist bragging about his "white only" sign. Is that anti-libertarian qua libertarian? No, he has the right to do that. But it is anti-cosmopolitian, immoral, and just a slimy person. Is it unlibertarian for Arvin to prefer that something bad happens to someone else rather than something else so he doesn't have to pay for it? No. But it is a hard callous cold brutalism. The minute we start trying to parse out the two, we are engaging in purity tests. There is only ONE thing we know for certain. That he HAS presented Libertarian ideas in a foul way. Separating the two is up to delegates in Platform. Not us. == There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.== Alicia, I don't "rally" - I advise my chairs. They ask me to. They elected me for my advise. They often disagree. But it is my duty to them to tell them what MY judgment is. But I FOLLOW theirs. This is now clear as day to me that this is a waste of time, that this Body will do nothing. I am all for symbolic stands and am fine being a lone vote (though I know I won't, but it a figure of speech) but I prefer not to waste my time now in furtherance of Arvin's puppet mastering of this body. He is telling us to jump and we are saying how high. I am tired of it. He is reveling in this jerking us around and I prefer to protest. But my Region will decide that. You and I both know that it is very likely that nothing will happen. Can I be wrong? Obviously. I thought the regional chairs would not support suspension. And they did. But this is coming up on a month with Arvin wasting my time, and it only cemented in me that the affiliates need to take more control. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alicia Mattson <[2][3]alicia.mattson@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, I will not spend the day filling people's inboxes to argue about this, as over in the real world there are productive things that I intend to focus on and accomplish. However, I think your pendulum has swung too far, and I think you are unfairly characterizing the reasons for some of the "no" votes. Neither of us is a mind-reader, and many haven't said much to explain their votes, but for you to presumptuously assign motives is not fair. A "no" vote here is not necessarily a rejection of the option of censure (even though some of the no votes are precisely that). It is the rejection of this particular wording. This motion tends to broadly characterize his comments as having been libertarian ideas. Even you, in today's postings, say you think some were not, but then you turn around and portray our "no" votes represent a purity test...? There will be an electronic meeting on Friday, at which time the LNC has the option of choosing other wording for either suspension or censure, or neither. To characterize this email ballot as being the end of the story, and trying to rally the troops to direct you to abstain in protest from the Friday meeting when other-worded options will be available just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face. -Alicia On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][3][4]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: This is what I sent to my region one chairs: Hello everyone. AZ has a new state chair but as he has not been privy to the whole of this discussions, I am not including AZ on this because it is nearly its end. For the record AZ passed a resolution this weekend condemning any support of pedophilia and hebephilia which obviously is in direct response to this situation. The censure motion will fail. Nearly all the yes's have changed their vote to no. Arvin posted a defense which was more of the same - you can read on the LNC list (and I encourage you to, and he posted on the state chairs list) but the tldr; is empathy fails, being an asshole works. I don't agree, and that is not what I signed up for. I suspect that is not what many of you signed up for either. My vote remains yes. The no votes now are for various reasons. I suspect but cannot prove that the over-reaching letter from counsel from pivotal. Others do not like the wording of the censure motion as it does not take a side in the age of consent debate. Some want to claim that NONE of Arvin's points were Libertarian. Others think some were and some were not (I fall in that camp). But what this has devolved into is factional jockeying about who gets to interpret the Platform and thus get the upper hand in the ideological struggle. Which is exactly what Arvin wanted. To make this into an ideological dispute and not one of professionalism, breach of duty, and proper conduct of leaders. I am deeply saddened. The vast majority of region 1 chairs told me that they agreed with much but not all of what he said. Yet some on the LNC are trying to condemn it all and - that is nakedly a factional issue. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce. Nothing acceptable to Region 1 will come out of it. I will attend and argue as that is my instructions, but I am writing to see if in any of this you wish to change my instructions. My recommendation to Region 1 states no matter where you stand. Issue your own resolutions and come to grips with the idea what the LNC is not capable of doing anything about this situation. I say this with regret. I am going to advise them to have me abstain in absolute protest and for Region 1 to take its own stand. We bow down to the national party too much, that has also been my position, and remains so. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:08 PM, <[1][2][4][5]erin.adams@lp.org> wrote: I dont get to vote on this but would have voted Yes. A motion to censure should have been made some time ago imo On 2018-01-29 15:04, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: So in short. Arvin acted horribly - will continue to act horribly and we have zero backbone to handle it. He breached his fiduciary duty HE COST OUR AFFILIATES DONORS, he insisted that our staff could rise to the occasion of raising that extra money and then broke their legs. My opinion. I don’t care if I’m the sole yes. I KNOW communicating radical ideas in a non-asshole way works. I do it every day. IT TAKES MORE COURAGE to do that than be an unempathic edgelord. And we bought it hook line and sinker. Literally shaking my head. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:59 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][2][3][5][6]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I maintain my position as what the majority of my regional Chairs want. I hear the concerns about the wording and will communicate those to my state Chairs to see if that influences their decision. However the case in region 1 was cumulative and not just about this incidence and like it or not age of consent is an issue this Party has argued about since the beginning and I see politicking here in this body to deny that and makes this body the arbiter when the line is drawn and not the delegates. This it seems to me that this has become less about Arvin’s reckless behaviour and more and factional jockeying. It seems that yes this is a continuation of 2006 where people were assured that the platform was simply streamlined and not changed - so trying the change the meaning of adult here to be an arbitrary state law when IT NEVER MEANT THAT in the old platforms is showing a hand. IMHO. Which is a shame. Because Arvin’s behaviour was abominable but it’s obvious this Body can’t do a thing about it. I will report to my regional Chairs and act accordingly. The 2/2 meeting will be a farce because of the will here to have a Libertarian Purity test. Which I find so ironic. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sam Goldstein <[2][3][4][6][7]sam.goldstein@lp.org> wrote: Please change my vote to "No" on this motion. I tend to agree with those who have pointed out that the wording of the censure seems to imply approval of ideas that are abhorrent to me and to the LP. --- Sam Goldstein Libertarian National Committee [4]317-850-0726 Cell On 2018-01-29 14:26, Alicia Mattson wrote: > I have to vote no. > As I wrote previously, censure (and more) is warranted here, > however, I > cannot vote for a motion which claims the outrageous comments which > were made by Mr. Vohra are "libertarian ideas", and that our leaders > and candidates are trying to win hearts and minds for those ideas > espoused by Mr. Vohra, just stated in a different way. > -Alicia > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Alicia Mattson > <[1][3][5][5][7][8]agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those > ideas. > -Alicia > > References > > 1. mailto:[4][6][6][8][9]agmattson@ gmail.com References 1. mailto:[7][7][9][10]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[8][8][10][11]sam.goldstein@lp.org 3. mailto:[9][9][11][12]agmattson@gmail.com 4. mailto:[10][10][12][13]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[11][13][14]erin.adams@lp.org 2. mailto:[12][14][15]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:[13][15][16]sam.goldstein@lp.org 4. tel:[14]317-850-0726 5. mailto:[15][16][17]agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:[16][17][18]agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:[17][18][19]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:[18][19][20]sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:[19][20][21]agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:[20][21][22]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[22][23]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[23][24]erin.adams@lp.org 3. mailto:[24][25]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 4. mailto:[25][26]sam.goldstein@lp.org 5. mailto:[26][27]agmattson@gmail.com 6. mailto:[27][28]agmattson@gmail.com 7. mailto:[28][29]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:[29][30]sam.goldstein@lp.org 9. mailto:[30][31]agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:[31][32]agmattson@gmail.com 11. mailto:[32][33]erin.adams@lp.org 12. mailto:[33][34]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 13. mailto:[34][35]sam.goldstein@lp.org 14. tel:[35]317-850-0726 15. mailto:[36][36]agmattson@gmail.com 16. mailto:[37][37]agmattson@gmail.com 17. mailto:[38][38]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 18. mailto:[39][39]sam.goldstein@lp.org 19. mailto:[40][40]agmattson@gmail.com 20. mailto:[41][41]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[42]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:[43]alicia.mattson@lp.org 3. mailto:[44]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 4. mailto:[45]erin.adams@lp.org 5. mailto:[46]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 6. mailto:[47]sam.goldstein@lp.org 7. mailto:[48]agmattson@gmail.com 8. mailto:[49]agmattson@gmail.com 9. mailto:[50]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 10. mailto:[51]sam.goldstein@lp.org 11. mailto:[52]agmattson@gmail.com 12. mailto:[53]agmattson@gmail.com 13. mailto:[54]erin.adams@lp.org 14. mailto:[55]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 15. mailto:[56]sam.goldstein@lp.org 16. mailto:[57]agmattson@gmail.com 17. mailto:[58]agmattson@gmail.com 18. mailto:[59]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 19. mailto:[60]sam.goldstein@lp.org 20. mailto:[61]agmattson@gmail.com 21. mailto:[62]agmattson@gmail.com 22. mailto:[63]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 23. mailto:[64]erin.adams@lp.org 24. mailto:[65]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 25. mailto:[66]sam.goldstein@lp.org 26. mailto:[67]agmattson@gmail.com 27. mailto:[68]agmattson@gmail.com 28. mailto:[69]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 29. mailto:[70]sam.goldstein@lp.org 30. mailto:[71]agmattson@gmail.com 31. mailto:[72]agmattson@gmail.com 32. mailto:[73]erin.adams@lp.org 33. mailto:[74]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 34. mailto:[75]sam.goldstein@lp.org 35. tel:[76]317-850-0726 36. mailto:[77]agmattson@gmail.com 37. mailto:[78]agmattson@gmail.com 38. mailto:[79]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 39. mailto:[80]sam.goldstein@lp.org 40. mailto:[81]agmattson@gmail.com 41. mailto:[82]agmattson@gmail.com References 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 3. mailto:alicia.mattson@lp.org 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 5. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 6. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 7. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 8. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 9. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 10. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 11. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 12. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 13. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 14. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 15. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 16. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 17. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 18. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 19. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 20. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 21. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 22. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 23. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 24. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 25. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 26. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 27. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 28. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 29. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 30. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 31. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 32. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 33. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 34. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 35. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 36. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 37. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 38. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 39. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 40. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 41. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 42. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 43. mailto:alicia.mattson@lp.org 44. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 45. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 46. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 47. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 48. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 49. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 50. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 51. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 52. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 53. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 54. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 55. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 56. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 57. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 58. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 59. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 60. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 61. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 62. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 63. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 64. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 65. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 66. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 67. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 68. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 69. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 70. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 71. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 72. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 73. mailto:erin.adams@lp.org 74. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 75. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 76. tel:317-850-0726 77. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 78. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 79. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 80. mailto:sam.goldstein@lp.org 81. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com 82. mailto:agmattson@gmail.com

I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote:

I vote yes.

--- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:

...

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1]tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [2]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight <[1]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote:

I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2]tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [2][3]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5]tim.hagan@lp.org

2. mailto:[6]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart:

“If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote:

I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest

On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight <[1][2]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3]tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [2][3][4]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

-- Arvin Vohra [16]www.VoteVohra.com [17]VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634

References

1. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 9. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 13. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra@gmail.com> wrote: Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: “If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote: I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight <[1][2][3]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3][4]tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [2][3][4][5]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5][6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6][7]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9][10]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10][11]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11][12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12][13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13][14]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business -- Arvin Vohra [16][17]www.VoteVohra.com [17][18]VoteVohra@gmail.com [19](301) 320-3634 References 1. mailto:[20]david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:[21]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:[22]tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:[23]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:[25]tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:[26]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. [27]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 9. mailto:[28]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[29]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[30]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [31]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 13. mailto:[32]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[33]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [34]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. [35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:[36]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 2. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 3. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 4. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 5. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 7. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 10. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 18. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 19. tel:(301) 320-3634 20. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 21. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 22. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 23. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 25. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 26. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 27. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 28. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 36. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

Caryn Ann, Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert". I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the discussion more civil. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: “If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote: I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight

<[1][2][3]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3][4]tim.hagan@lp.org>

wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list

[2][3][4][5]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5][6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6][7]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9][10]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10][11]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11][12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12][13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13][14]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business -- Arvin Vohra [16][17]www.VoteVohra.com [17][18]VoteVohra@gmail.com [19](301) 320-3634 References 1. mailto:[20]david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:[21]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:[22]tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:[23]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:[25]tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:[26]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. [27]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 9. mailto:[28]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[29]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[30]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [31]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 13. mailto:[32]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[33]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [34]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. [35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:[36]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 2. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 3. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 4. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 5. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 7. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 10. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 18. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 19. tel:(301) 320-3634 20. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 21. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 22. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 23. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 25. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 26. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 27. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 28. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 36. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again - does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to move a resolution to apologize to Roy Moore? On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a pervert (they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they have a job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare.

Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of what he said it IS awful. And that’s what our members heard. Many of them just as “pure” as Arvin.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <starchild@lp.org> wrote:

...

Caryn Ann,

Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert". I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the discussion more civil.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE

On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

...

And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: “If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote: I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight

<[1][2][3]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3][4]tim.hagan@lp.org>

wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list

[2][3][4][5]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5][6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6][7]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9][10]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10][11]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11][12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12][13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13][14]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business -- Arvin Vohra [16][17]www.VoteVohra.com [17][18]VoteVohra@gmail.com [19](301) 320-3634 References 1. mailto:[20]david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:[21]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:[22]tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:[23]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:[25]tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:[26]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. [27]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 9. mailto:[28]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[29]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[30]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [31]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 13. mailto:[32]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[33]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [34]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. [35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:[36]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 2. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 3. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 4. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 5. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 7. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 10. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 18. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 19. tel:(301) 320-3634 20. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 21. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 22. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 23. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 25. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 26. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 27. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 28. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 36. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again - does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to move a resolution to apologize to Roy Moore? On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a pervert (they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they have a job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare. Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of what he said it IS awful. And that’s what our members heard. Many of them just as “pure” as Arvin. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <[2]starchild@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert". I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the discussion more civil. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > And of course that was not the point. > I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The > Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya > know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a > job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. > This is called using people. > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1][4]votevohra@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: > “If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of > our > Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on > Drugs, > claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was > theft. > All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive > to > the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, > regardless > of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are > seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum > precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious > change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe > that > the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for > engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2][5]david.demarest@lp.org> > wrote: > I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to > vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting > to > consider suspension. > Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop > speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has > correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better > job > of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step > up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward > our shared goal of freedom. > It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson > has > aptly described as a circular firing squad, this > political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and > pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our > principles > but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to > the > Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of > self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of > reworded censure motions. > Good grief - enough already! > ~David Pratt Demarest > On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am > disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is > woefully > inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at > all. > What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That > is > not > the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight > > <[1][2][3][6]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: > I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and > look > forward to > the electronic meeting. > Thanks, > Patrick McKnight > Region 8 Rep > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan > <[1][2][3][4][7]tim.hagan@lp.org> > > wrote: > I vote yes. > --- > Tim Hagan > Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee > On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: > We have an electronic mail ballot. > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, > 2018 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for > repeated > public > comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an > inflammatory > and > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian > leaders and > candidates for public office winning hearts and minds > for > those > ideas. > -Alicia > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > > [2][3][4][5][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > [3][4][5][6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin > /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > References > 1. mailto:[5][6][7][10]tim.hagan@lp.org > 2. mailto:[6][7][8][11]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 3. [7][8][9][12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma > ilman/listinfo/lnc-business > References > 1. mailto:[9][10][13]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 2. mailto:[10][11][14]tim.hagan@lp.org > 3. mailto:[11][12][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 4. [12][13][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ > mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 5. mailto:[13][14][17]tim.hagan@lp.org > 6. mailto:[14][15][18]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 7. [15][16][19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ > mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > -- > Arvin Vohra > [16][17][20]www.VoteVohra.com > [17][18][21]VoteVohra@gmail.com > [19](301) 320-3634 > References > 1. mailto:[20][22]david.demarest@lp.org > 2. mailto:[21][23]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 3. mailto:[22][24]tim.hagan@lp.org > 4. mailto:[23][25]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 5. [24][26]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 6. mailto:[25][27]tim.hagan@lp.org > 7. mailto:[26][28]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 8. [27][29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 9. mailto:[28][30]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 10. mailto:[29][31]tim.hagan@lp.org > 11. mailto:[30][32]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 12. [31][33]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 13. mailto:[32][34]tim.hagan@lp.org > 14. mailto:[33][35]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 15. [34][36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 16. [35][37]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > 17. mailto:[36][38]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > References > > 1. mailto:[39]votevohra@gmail.com > 2. mailto:[40]david.demarest@lp.org > 3. mailto:[41]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 4. mailto:[42]tim.hagan@lp.org > 5. mailto:[43]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 6. [44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin > 7. mailto:[45]tim.hagan@lp.org > 8. mailto:[46]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 9. [47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma > 10. mailto:[48]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 11. mailto:[49]tim.hagan@lp.org > 12. mailto:[50]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 13. [51]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 14. mailto:[52]tim.hagan@lp.org > 15. mailto:[53]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 16. [54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 17. [55]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > 18. mailto:[56]VoteVohra@gmail.com > 19. tel:(301) 320-3634 > 20. mailto:[57]david.demarest@lp.org > 21. mailto:[58]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 22. mailto:[59]tim.hagan@lp.org > 23. mailto:[60]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 24. [61]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 25. mailto:[62]tim.hagan@lp.org > 26. mailto:[63]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 27. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 28. mailto:[65]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 29. mailto:[66]tim.hagan@lp.org > 30. mailto:[67]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 31. [68]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 32. mailto:[69]tim.hagan@lp.org > 33. mailto:[70]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 34. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 35. [72]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > 36. mailto:[73]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:starchild@lp.org 3. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 4. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 5. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 6. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 7. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 10. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 13. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 14. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 17. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 18. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 21. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 22. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 23. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 24. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 25. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 26. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 27. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 28. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 31. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 32. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 33. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 34. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 35. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 38. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 39. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 40. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 41. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 42. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 43. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 44. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 45. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 46. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 48. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 49. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 50. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 51. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 52. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 53. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 56. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 57. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 58. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 59. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 60. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 61. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 62. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 63. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 66. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 67. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 68. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 69. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 70. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 73. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

After some difficult deliberation, I vote no on this motion. No one has yet been able to identify anything the vice-chair said that is clearly un-libertarian, and while I continue to think that some of his outreach efforts have shown poor judgement, and have obviously upset many people, I cannot endorse the misguided set of priorities that would be implicitly endorsed by censuring someone in a case like this while failing to censure other Libertarian leaders such as William Weld last year who have said clearly un-libertarian things from a much more visible platform. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Starchild wrote:

A statement describing a group of people as "fair game" sounds like describing them as animals to be hunted, rather than individual human beings with rights. I would reject that characterization.

"Pervert" is a loaded term commonly applied to demonize anyone whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable. It has been applied to LGBTQ people and others, and I don't think it is appropriate in what should be a rational discussion about human development and the capacity to consent. I haven't heard that Arvin ever used the term (hopefully not).

In the case of Roy Moore, he has been credibly accused of sexual assault (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations, in particular the case of Beverly Young Nelson). He is also an authoritarian-leaning politician who wants to force his morality on others at the point of government guns. I don't think we owe him an apology.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE

On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

...

And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again - does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to move a resolution to apologize to Roy Moore?

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a pervert (they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they have a job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare.

Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of what he said it IS awful. And that’s what our members heard. Many of them just as “pure” as Arvin.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <[2]starchild@lp.org> wrote:

Caryn Ann, Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert". I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the discussion more civil. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

...

And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1][4]votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: “If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2][5]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote: I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight

<[1][2][3][6]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3][4][7]tim.hagan@lp.org>

wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list

[2][3][4][5][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5][6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6][7][10]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7][8][11]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8][9][12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9][10][13]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10][11][14]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11][12][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12][13][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13][14][17]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14][15][18]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15][16][19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business -- Arvin Vohra [16][17][20]www.VoteVohra.com [17][18][21]VoteVohra@gmail.com [19](301) 320-3634 References 1. mailto:[20][22]david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:[21][23]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:[22][24]tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:[23][25]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [24][26]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:[25][27]tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:[26][28]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. [27][29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 9. mailto:[28][30]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[29][31]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[30][32]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [31][33]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 13. mailto:[32][34]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[33][35]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [34][36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. [35][37]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:[36][38]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:[39]votevohra@gmail.com 2. mailto:[40]david.demarest@lp.org 3. mailto:[41]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 4. mailto:[42]tim.hagan@lp.org 5. mailto:[43]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. [44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 7. mailto:[45]tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:[46]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. [47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 10. mailto:[48]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:[49]tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:[50]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. [51]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:[52]tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:[53]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. [54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 17. [55]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 18. mailto:[56]VoteVohra@gmail.com 19. tel:(301) 320-3634 20. mailto:[57]david.demarest@lp.org 21. mailto:[58]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 22. mailto:[59]tim.hagan@lp.org 23. mailto:[60]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 24. [61]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 25. mailto:[62]tim.hagan@lp.org 26. mailto:[63]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 27. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 28. mailto:[65]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:[66]tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:[67]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. [68]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:[69]tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:[70]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. [72]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 36. mailto:[73]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. mailto:starchild@lp.org 3. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 4. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 5. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 6. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 7. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 10. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 13. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 14. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 17. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 18. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 21. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 22. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 23. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 24. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 25. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 26. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 27. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 28. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 31. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 32. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 33. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 34. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 35. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 38. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 39. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 40. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 41. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 42. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 43. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 44. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 45. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 46. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 48. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 49. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 50. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 51. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 52. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 53. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 56. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 57. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 58. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 59. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 60. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 61. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 62. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 63. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 66. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 67. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 68. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 69. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 70. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 73. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

After some difficult deliberation, I vote no on this motion. No one has yet been able to identify anything the vice-chair said that is clearly un-libertarian, and while I continue to think that some of his outreach efforts have shown poor judgement, and have obviously upset many people, I cannot endorse the misguided set of priorities that would be implicitly endorsed by censuring someone in a case like this while failing to censure other Libertarian leaders such as William Weld last year who have said clearly un-libertarian things from a much more visible platform. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [1]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Starchild wrote: A statement describing a group of people as "fair game" sounds like describing them as animals to be hunted, rather than individual human beings with rights. I would reject that characterization. "Pervert" is a loaded term commonly applied to demonize anyone whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable. It has been applied to LGBTQ people and others, and I don't think it is appropriate in what should be a rational discussion about human development and the capacity to consent. I haven't heard that Arvin ever used the term (hopefully not). In the case of Roy Moore, he has been credibly accused of sexual assault (see [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegation s, in particular the case of Beverly Young Nelson). He is also an authoritarian-leaning politician who wants to force his morality on others at the point of government guns. I don't think we owe him an apology. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again - does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to move a resolution to apologize to Roy Moore? On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a pervert (they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they have a job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare. Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of what he said it IS awful. And that�s what our members heard. Many of them just as �pure� as Arvin. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <[2]starchild@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert". I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the discussion more civil. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1][4]votevohra@gmail.com> wrote: Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: �If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It�s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?� ----Mary J. Ruwart On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2][5]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote: I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight <[1][2][3][6]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3][4][7]tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [2][3][4][5][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5][6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6][7][10]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7][8][11]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8][9][12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9][10][13]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10][11][14]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11][12][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12][13][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13][14][17]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14][15][18]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15][16][19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business -- Arvin Vohra [16][17][20]www.VoteVohra.com [17][18][21]VoteVohra@gmail.com [19](301) 320-3634 References 1. mailto:[20][22]david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:[21][23]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:[22][24]tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:[23][25]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [24][26]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:[25][27]tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:[26][28]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. [27][29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 9. mailto:[28][30]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[29][31]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[30][32]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [31][33]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 13. mailto:[32][34]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[33][35]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [34][36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. [35][37]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:[36][38]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[39]votevohra@gmail.com 2. mailto:[40]david.demarest@lp.org 3. mailto:[41]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 4. mailto:[42]tim.hagan@lp.org 5. mailto:[43]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. [44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 7. mailto:[45]tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:[46]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. [47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 10. mailto:[48]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:[49]tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:[50]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. [51]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:[52]tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:[53]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. [54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 17. [55]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 18. mailto:[56]VoteVohra@gmail.com 19. tel:(301) 320-3634 20. mailto:[57]david.demarest@lp.org 21. mailto:[58]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 22. mailto:[59]tim.hagan@lp.org 23. mailto:[60]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 24. [61]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 25. mailto:[62]tim.hagan@lp.org 26. mailto:[63]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 27. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 28. mailto:[65]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:[66]tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:[67]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. [68]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:[69]tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:[70]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. [72]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 36. mailto:[73]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. [4]mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. [5]mailto:starchild@lp.org 3. [6]mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 4. [7]mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 5. [8]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 6. [9]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 7. [10]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 8. [11]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. [12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 10. [13]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 11. [14]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 13. [16]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 14. [17]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 15. [18]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 17. [20]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 18. [21]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. [22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. [23]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 21. [24]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 22. [25]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 23. [26]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 24. [27]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 25. [28]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 26. [29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 27. [30]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 28. [31]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. [32]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. [33]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 31. [34]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 32. [35]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 33. [36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 34. [37]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 35. [38]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. [39]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. [40]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 38. [41]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 39. [42]mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 40. [43]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 41. [44]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 42. [45]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 43. [46]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 44. [47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 45. [48]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 46. [49]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. [50]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 48. [51]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 49. [52]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 50. [53]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 51. [54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 52. [55]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 53. [56]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. [57]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. [58]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 56. [59]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 57. [60]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 58. [61]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 59. [62]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 60. [63]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 61. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 62. [65]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 63. [66]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. [67]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. [68]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 66. [69]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 67. [70]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 68. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 69. [72]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 70. [73]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. [74]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. [75]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 73. [76]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations 3. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 5. mailto:starchild@lp.org 6. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 7. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 8. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 9. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 13. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 16. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 17. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 18. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 21. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 23. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 24. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 25. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 26. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 27. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 28. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 31. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 32. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 33. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 34. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 35. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 38. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 39. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 40. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 41. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 42. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 43. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 44. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 45. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 46. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 48. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 49. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 50. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 51. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 52. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 53. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 56. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 57. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 58. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 59. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 60. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 61. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 62. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 63. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 66. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 67. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 68. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 69. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 70. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 73. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 74. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 75. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 76. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

Starchild, The time stamp on your vote here: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011851.html is not based on the time on your computer. It is the time on the mail server, which indicates it was more than 6 minutes past the voting deadline. -Alicia On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Starchild <starchild@lp.org> wrote:

P.S. – Please note the message was sent before the midnight Pacific Time voting deadline; the time stamp on my email software is incorrect.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE

On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:06 AM, Starchild wrote:

...

After some difficult deliberation, I vote no on this motion. No one has yet been able to identify anything the vice-chair said that is clearly un-libertarian, and while I continue to think that some of his outreach efforts have shown poor judgement, and have obviously upset many people, I cannot endorse the misguided set of priorities that would be implicitly endorsed by censuring someone in a case like this while failing to censure other Libertarian leaders such as William Weld last year who have said clearly un-libertarian things from a much more visible platform.

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [1]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE

On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Starchild wrote:

A statement describing a group of people as "fair game" sounds like describing them as animals to be hunted, rather than individual human beings with rights. I would reject that characterization. "Pervert" is a loaded term commonly applied to demonize anyone whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable. It has been applied to LGBTQ people and others, and I don't think it is appropriate in what should be a rational discussion about human development and the capacity to consent. I haven't heard that Arvin ever used the term (hopefully not). In the case of Roy Moore, he has been credibly accused of sexual assault (see [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_ misconduct_allegation s, in particular the case of Beverly Young Nelson). He is also an authoritarian-leaning politician who wants to force his morality on others at the point of government guns. I don't think we owe him an apology. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE

On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again -

does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to move a

resolution to apologize to Roy Moore?

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos

<[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication

of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a pervert

(they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they have a

job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare.

Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of what he

said it IS awful. And that�s what our members heard. Many of them

just as �pure� as Arvin.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <[2]starchild@lp.org> wrote:

Caryn Ann,

Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate

on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to

imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so

accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems

uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert".

I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the

discussion more civil.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

[3]RealReform@earthlink.net

(415) 625-FREE

On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And of course that was not the point.

I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of

"The

Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and

ya

know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert

with a

job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare.

This is called using people.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra

<[1][4]votevohra@gmail.com>

wrote:

Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart:

�If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early

days of

our

Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War

on

Drugs,

claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation

was

theft.

All of these positions were considered inflammatory and

offensive

to

the majority of people outside the LP for most of the

1980s,

regardless

of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they

are

seriously embraced or considered across the political

spectrum

precisely because we spoke out. It�s impossible to affect

serious

change without offending some listeners. How can anyone

believe

that

the LP supports free speech when its own members are

punished for

engaging in it?� ----Mary J. Ruwart

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM,

<[1][2][5]david.demarest@lp.org>

wrote:

I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask

others to

vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic

meeting

to

consider suspension.

Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to

stop

speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He

has

correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a

better

job

of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need

to step

up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track

toward

our shared goal of freedom.

It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms.

Mattson

has

aptly described as a circular firing squad, this

political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters

and

pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our

principles

but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough

damage to

the

Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of

self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a

death-spiral of

reworded censure motions.

Good grief - enough already!

~David Pratt Demarest

On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I hope my statement that the censure will fail is

disproven. I am

disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This

censure is

woefully

inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as

nothing at

all.

What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics.

That

is

not

the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight

<[1][2][3][6]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote:

I vote yes. However I feel censure is

insufficient and

look

forward to

the electronic meeting.

Thanks,

Patrick McKnight

Region 8 Rep

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan

<[1][2][3][4][7]tim.hagan@lp.org>

wrote:

I vote yes.

---

Tim Hagan

Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by

January 30,

2018 at

11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan

Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra

for

repeated

public

comments which have presented libertarian ideas

in an

inflammatory

and

sometimes offensive manner not conducive to

Libertarian

leaders and

candidates for public office winning hearts and

minds

for

those

ideas.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

[2][3][4][5][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

[3][4][5][6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin

/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:[5][6][7][10]tim.hagan@lp.org

2. mailto:[6][7][8][11]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

3. [7][8][9][12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma

ilman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:[9][10][13]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

2. mailto:[10][11][14]tim.hagan@lp.org

3. mailto:[11][12][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

4. [12][13][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/

mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

5. mailto:[13][14][17]tim.hagan@lp.org

6. mailto:[14][15][18]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

7. [15][16][19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/

mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

--

Arvin Vohra

[16][17][20]www.VoteVohra.com

[17][18][21]VoteVohra@gmail.com

[19](301) 320-3634

References

1. mailto:[20][22]david.demarest@lp.org

2. mailto:[21][23]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

3. mailto:[22][24]tim.hagan@lp.org

4. mailto:[23][25]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

5.

[24][26]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

6. mailto:[25][27]tim.hagan@lp.org

7. mailto:[26][28]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

8.

[27][29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

9. mailto:[28][30]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

10. mailto:[29][31]tim.hagan@lp.org

11. mailto:[30][32]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

12.

[31][33]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

13. mailto:[32][34]tim.hagan@lp.org

14. mailto:[33][35]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

15.

[34][36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

16. [35][37]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

17. mailto:[36][38]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:[39]votevohra@gmail.com

2. mailto:[40]david.demarest@lp.org

3. mailto:[41]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

4. mailto:[42]tim.hagan@lp.org

5. mailto:[43]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

6. [44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin

7. mailto:[45]tim.hagan@lp.org

8. mailto:[46]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

9. [47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma

10. mailto:[48]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

11. mailto:[49]tim.hagan@lp.org

12. mailto:[50]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

13. [51]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

14. mailto:[52]tim.hagan@lp.org

15. mailto:[53]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

16. [54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

17. [55]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

18. mailto:[56]VoteVohra@gmail.com

19. tel:(301) 320-3634

20. mailto:[57]david.demarest@lp.org

21. mailto:[58]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

22. mailto:[59]tim.hagan@lp.org

23. mailto:[60]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

24. [61]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

25. mailto:[62]tim.hagan@lp.org

26. mailto:[63]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

27. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

28. mailto:[65]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

29. mailto:[66]tim.hagan@lp.org

30. mailto:[67]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

31. [68]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

32. mailto:[69]tim.hagan@lp.org

33. mailto:[70]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

34. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

35. [72]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

36. mailto:[73]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. [4]mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org

2. [5]mailto:starchild@lp.org

3. [6]mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net

4. [7]mailto:votevohra@gmail.com

5. [8]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

6. [9]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

7. [10]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

8. [11]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

9. [12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin

10. [13]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

11. [14]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

12. [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma

13. [16]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

14. [17]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

15. [18]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

16. [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/

17. [20]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

18. [21]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

19. [22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/

20. [23]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

21. [24]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

22. [25]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

23. [26]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

24. [27]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

25. [28]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

26. [29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

27. [30]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

28. [31]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

29. [32]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

30. [33]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

31. [34]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

32. [35]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

33. [36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

34. [37]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

35. [38]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

36. [39]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

37. [40]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

38. [41]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

39. [42]mailto:votevohra@gmail.com

40. [43]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

41. [44]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

42. [45]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

43. [46]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

44. [47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin

45. [48]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

46. [49]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

47. [50]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma

48. [51]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

49. [52]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

50. [53]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

51. [54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

52. [55]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

53. [56]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

54. [57]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

55. [58]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

56. [59]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

57. [60]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

58. [61]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

59. [62]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

60. [63]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

61. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

62. [65]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

63. [66]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

64. [67]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

65. [68]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

66. [69]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

67. [70]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

68. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

69. [72]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

70. [73]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

71. [74]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

72. [75]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

73. [76]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_ allegations 3. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 5. mailto:starchild@lp.org 6. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 7. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 8. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 9. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 13. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 16. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 17. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 18. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 21. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 23. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 24. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 25. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 26. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 27. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 28. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 31. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 32. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 33. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 34. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 35. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 38. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 39. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 40. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 41. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 42. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 43. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 44. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 45. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 46. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 48. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 49. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 50. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 51. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 52. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 53. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 56. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 57. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 58. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 59. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 60. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 61. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 62. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 63. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 66. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 67. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 68. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 69. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 70. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 73. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 74. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 75. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 76. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

Starchild, The time stamp on your vote here: [1]http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011851.html is not based on the time on your computer. It is the time on the mail server, which indicates it was more than 6 minutes past the voting deadline. -Alicia On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Starchild <[2]starchild@lp.org> wrote: P.S. – Please note the message was sent before the midnight Pacific Time voting deadline; the time stamp on my email software is incorrect. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:06 AM, Starchild wrote: > After some difficult deliberation, I vote no on this motion. No one > has yet been able to identify anything the vice-chair said that is > clearly un-libertarian, and while I continue to think that some of his > outreach efforts have shown poor judgement, and have obviously upset > many people, I cannot endorse the misguided set of priorities that > would be implicitly endorsed by censuring someone in a case like this > while failing to censure other Libertarian leaders such as William Weld > last year who have said clearly un-libertarian things from a much more > visible platform. > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > [1][4]RealReform@earthlink.net > (415) 625-FREE > > > On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Starchild wrote: > > A statement describing a group of people as "fair game" sounds like > describing them as animals to be hunted, rather than individual human > beings with rights. I would reject that characterization. > "Pervert" is a loaded term commonly applied to demonize anyone whose > sexual habits are not considered acceptable. It has been applied to > LGBTQ people and others, and I don't think it is appropriate in what > should be a rational discussion about human development and the > capacity to consent. I haven't heard that Arvin ever used the term > (hopefully not). > In the case of Roy Moore, he has been credibly accused of sexual > assault (see > [2][5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_ misconduct_allegation > s, in particular the case of Beverly Young Nelson). He is also an > authoritarian-leaning politician who wants to force his morality on > others at the point of government guns. I don't think we owe him an > apology. > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > [3][6]RealReform@earthlink.net > (415) 625-FREE > > > On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > > And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again > - > > does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to > move a > > resolution to apologize to Roy Moore? > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos > > <[1][7]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: > > I am using words the way people heard them and that was the > implication > > of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a > pervert > > (they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they > have a > > job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare. > > Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of > what he > > said it IS awful. And that�s what our members heard. Many of them > > just as �pure� as Arvin. > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <[2][8]starchild@lp.org> > wrote: > > Caryn Ann, > > Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our > debate > > on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to > > imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, > so > > accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems > > uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like > "pervert". > > I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the > > discussion more civil. > > Love & Liberty, > > ((( starchild ))) > > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > > [3][9]RealReform@earthlink.net > > (415) 625-FREE > > On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > > And of course that was not the point. > > I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of > > "The > > Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and > > ya > > know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert > > with a > > job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. > > This is called using people. > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra > > <[1][4][10]votevohra@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: > > �If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early > > days of > > our > > Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War > > on > > Drugs, > > claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation > > was > > theft. > > All of these positions were considered inflammatory and > > offensive > > to > > the majority of people outside the LP for most of the > > 1980s, > > regardless > > of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they > > are > > seriously embraced or considered across the political > > spectrum > > precisely because we spoke out. It�s impossible to affect > > serious > > change without offending some listeners. How can anyone > > believe > > that > > the LP supports free speech when its own members are > > punished for > > engaging in it?� ----Mary J. Ruwart > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, > > <[1][2][5][11]david.demarest@lp.org> > > wrote: > > I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask > > others to > > vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic > > meeting > > to > > consider suspension. > > Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to > > stop > > speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He > > has > > correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a > > better > > job > > of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need > > to step > > up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track > > toward > > our shared goal of freedom. > > It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. > > Mattson > > has > > aptly described as a circular firing squad, this > > political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters > > and > > pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our > > principles > > but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough > > damage to > > the > > Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of > > self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a > > death-spiral of > > reworded censure motions. > > Good grief - enough already! > > ~David Pratt Demarest > > On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > > I hope my statement that the censure will fail is > > disproven. I am > > disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This > > censure is > > woefully > > inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as > > nothing at > > all. > > What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. > > That > > is > > not > > the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight > > <[1][2][3][6][12]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: > > I vote yes. However I feel censure is > > insufficient and > > look > > forward to > > the electronic meeting. > > Thanks, > > Patrick McKnight > > Region 8 Rep > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan > > <[1][2][3][4][7][13]tim.hagan@lp.org> > > wrote: > > I vote yes. > > --- > > Tim Hagan > > Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee > > On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by > > January 30, > > 2018 at > > 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan > > Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra > > for > > repeated > > public > > comments which have presented libertarian ideas > > in an > > inflammatory > > and > > sometimes offensive manner not conducive to > > Libertarian > > leaders and > > candidates for public office winning hearts and > > minds > > for > > those > > ideas. > > -Alicia > > _______________________________________________ > > Lnc-business mailing list > > [2][3][4][5][8][14]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > [3][4][5][6][9][15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin > > /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > References > > 1. mailto:[5][6][7][10][16]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 2. mailto:[6][7][8][11][17]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 3. [7][8][9][12][18]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma > > ilman/listinfo/lnc-business > > References > > 1. mailto:[9][10][13][19]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 2. mailto:[10][11][14][20]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 3. mailto:[11][12][15][21]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 4. [12][13][16][22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ > > mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 5. mailto:[13][14][17][23]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 6. mailto:[14][15][18][24]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 7. [15][16][19][25]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ > > mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > -- > > Arvin Vohra > > [16][17][20][26]www.VoteVohra.com > > [17][18][21][27]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > [19][28](301) 320-3634 > > References > > 1. mailto:[20][22][29]david.demarest@lp.org > > 2. mailto:[21][23][30]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 3. mailto:[22][24][31]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 4. mailto:[23][25][32]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 5. > > [24][26][33]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business > > 6. mailto:[25][27][34]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 7. mailto:[26][28][35]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 8. > > [27][29][36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business > > 9. mailto:[28][30][37]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 10. mailto:[29][31][38]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 11. mailto:[30][32][39]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 12. > > [31][33][40]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business > > 13. mailto:[32][34][41]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 14. mailto:[33][35][42]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 15. > > [34][36][43]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business > > 16. [35][37][44]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > > 17. mailto:[36][38][45]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > References > > 1. mailto:[39][46]votevohra@gmail.com > > 2. mailto:[40][47]david.demarest@lp.org > > 3. mailto:[41][48]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 4. mailto:[42][49]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 5. mailto:[43][50]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 6. [44][51]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin > > 7. mailto:[45][52]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 8. mailto:[46][53]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 9. [47][54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma > > 10. mailto:[48][55]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 11. mailto:[49][56]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 12. mailto:[50][57]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 13. [51][58]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 14. mailto:[52][59]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 15. mailto:[53][60]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 16. [54][61]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 17. [55][62]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > > 18. mailto:[56][63]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > 19. tel:[64](301) 320-3634 > > 20. mailto:[57][65]david.demarest@lp.org > > 21. mailto:[58][66]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 22. mailto:[59][67]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 23. mailto:[60][68]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 24. [61][69]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 25. mailto:[62][70]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 26. mailto:[63][71]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 27. [64][72]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 28. mailto:[65][73]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 29. mailto:[66][74]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 30. mailto:[67][75]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 31. [68][76]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 32. mailto:[69][77]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 33. mailto:[70][78]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 34. [71][79]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 35. [72][80]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > > 36. mailto:[73][81]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > References > > 1. [4]mailto:[82]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org > > 2. [5]mailto:[83]starchild@lp.org > > 3. [6]mailto:[84]RealReform@earthlink.net > > 4. [7]mailto:[85]votevohra@gmail.com > > 5. [8]mailto:[86]david.demarest@lp.org > > 6. [9]mailto:[87]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 7. [10]mailto:[88]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 8. [11]mailto:[89]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 9. [12][90]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin > > 10. [13]mailto:[91]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 11. [14]mailto:[92]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 12. [15][93]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma > > 13. [16]mailto:[94]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 14. [17]mailto:[95]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 15. [18]mailto:[96]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 16. [19][97]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ > > 17. [20]mailto:[98]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 18. [21]mailto:[99]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 19. [22][100]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ > > 20. [23][101]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > > 21. [24]mailto:[102]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > 22. [25]mailto:[103]david.demarest@lp.org > > 23. [26]mailto:[104]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 24. [27]mailto:[105]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 25. [28]mailto:[106]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 26. [29][107]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 27. [30]mailto:[108]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 28. [31]mailto:[109]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 29. [32][110]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 30. [33]mailto:[111]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 31. [34]mailto:[112]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 32. [35]mailto:[113]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 33. [36][114]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 34. [37]mailto:[115]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 35. [38]mailto:[116]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 36. [39][117]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 37. [40][118]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > > 38. [41]mailto:[119]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > 39. [42]mailto:[120]votevohra@gmail.com > > 40. [43]mailto:[121]david.demarest@lp.org > > 41. [44]mailto:[122]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 42. [45]mailto:[123]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 43. [46]mailto:[124]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 44. [47][125]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin > > 45. [48]mailto:[126]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 46. [49]mailto:[127]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 47. [50][128]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma > > 48. [51]mailto:[129]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 49. [52]mailto:[130]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 50. [53]mailto:[131]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 51. [54][132]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 52. [55]mailto:[133]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 53. [56]mailto:[134]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 54. [57][135]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 55. [58][136]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > > 56. [59]mailto:[137]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > 57. [60]mailto:[138]david.demarest@lp.org > > 58. [61]mailto:[139]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 59. [62]mailto:[140]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 60. [63]mailto:[141]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 61. [64][142]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 62. [65]mailto:[143]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 63. [66]mailto:[144]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 64. [67][145]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 65. [68]mailto:[146]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > > 66. [69]mailto:[147]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 67. [70]mailto:[148]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 68. [71][149]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 69. [72]mailto:[150]tim.hagan@lp.org > > 70. [73]mailto:[151]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > > 71. [74][152]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > > 72. [75][153]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > > 73. [76]mailto:[154]VoteVohra@gmail.com > > References > > 1. mailto:[155]RealReform@earthlink.net > 2. [156]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations > 3. mailto:[157]RealReform@earthlink.net > 4. mailto:[158]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org > 5. mailto:[159]starchild@lp.org > 6. mailto:[160]RealReform@earthlink.net > 7. mailto:[161]votevohra@gmail.com > 8. mailto:[162]david.demarest@lp.org > 9. mailto:[163]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 10. mailto:[164]tim.hagan@lp.org > 11. mailto:[165]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 12. [166]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin > 13. mailto:[167]tim.hagan@lp.org > 14. mailto:[168]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 15. [169]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma > 16. mailto:[170]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 17. mailto:[171]tim.hagan@lp.org > 18. mailto:[172]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 19. [173]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ > 20. mailto:[174]tim.hagan@lp.org > 21. mailto:[175]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 22. [176]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ > 23. [177]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > 24. mailto:[178]VoteVohra@gmail.com > 25. mailto:[179]david.demarest@lp.org > 26. mailto:[180]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 27. mailto:[181]tim.hagan@lp.org > 28. mailto:[182]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 29. [183]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 30. mailto:[184]tim.hagan@lp.org > 31. mailto:[185]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 32. [186]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 33. mailto:[187]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 34. mailto:[188]tim.hagan@lp.org > 35. mailto:[189]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 36. [190]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 37. mailto:[191]tim.hagan@lp.org > 38. mailto:[192]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 39. [193]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 40. [194]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > 41. mailto:[195]VoteVohra@gmail.com > 42. mailto:[196]votevohra@gmail.com > 43. mailto:[197]david.demarest@lp.org > 44. mailto:[198]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 45. mailto:[199]tim.hagan@lp.org > 46. mailto:[200]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 47. [201]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin > 48. mailto:[202]tim.hagan@lp.org > 49. mailto:[203]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 50. [204]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma > 51. mailto:[205]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 52. mailto:[206]tim.hagan@lp.org > 53. mailto:[207]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 54. [208]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 55. mailto:[209]tim.hagan@lp.org > 56. mailto:[210]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 57. [211]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 58. [212]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > 59. mailto:[213]VoteVohra@gmail.com > 60. mailto:[214]david.demarest@lp.org > 61. mailto:[215]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 62. mailto:[216]tim.hagan@lp.org > 63. mailto:[217]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 64. [218]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 65. mailto:[219]tim.hagan@lp.org > 66. mailto:[220]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 67. [221]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 68. mailto:[222]patrick.mcknight@lp.org > 69. mailto:[223]tim.hagan@lp.org > 70. mailto:[224]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 71. [225]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 72. mailto:[226]tim.hagan@lp.org > 73. mailto:[227]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > 74. [228]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business > 75. [229]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ > 76. mailto:[230]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011851.html 2. mailto:starchild@lp.org 3. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 4. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegation 6. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 7. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 8. mailto:starchild@lp.org 9. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 10. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 11. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 12. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 13. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 16. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 17. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 18. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 19. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 20. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 21. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 23. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 24. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 25. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 26. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 27. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 28. tel:(301) 320-3634 29. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 30. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 31. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 32. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 33. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 34. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 35. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 38. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 39. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 40. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 41. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 42. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 43. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 44. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 45. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 46. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 47. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 48. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 49. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 50. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 51. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 52. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 53. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 55. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 56. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 57. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 58. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 59. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 60. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 61. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 62. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 63. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 64. tel:(301) 320-3634 65. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 66. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 67. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 68. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 69. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 70. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 71. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 72. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 73. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 74. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 75. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 76. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 77. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 78. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 79. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 80. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 81. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 82. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 83. mailto:starchild@lp.org 84. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 85. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 86. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 87. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 88. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 89. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 90. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 91. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 92. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 93. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 94. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 95. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 96. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 97. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 98. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 99. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 100. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 101. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 102. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 103. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 104. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 105. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 106. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 107. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 108. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 109. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 110. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 111. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 112. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 113. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 114. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 115. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 116. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 117. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 118. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 119. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 120. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 121. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 122. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 123. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 124. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 125. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 126. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 127. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 128. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 129. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 130. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 131. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 132. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 133. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 134. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 135. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 136. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 137. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 138. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 139. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 140. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 141. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 142. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 143. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 144. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 145. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 146. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 147. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 148. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 149. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 150. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 151. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 152. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 153. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 154. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 155. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 156. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations 157. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 158. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 159. mailto:starchild@lp.org 160. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 161. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 162. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 163. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 164. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 165. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 166. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 167. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 168. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 169. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 170. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 171. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 172. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 173. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 174. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 175. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 176. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 177. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 178. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 179. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 180. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 181. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 182. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 183. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 184. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 185. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 186. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 187. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 188. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 189. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 190. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 191. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 192. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 193. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 194. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 195. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 196. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 197. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 198. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 199. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 200. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 201. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 202. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 203. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 204. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 205. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 206. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 207. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 208. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 209. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 210. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 211. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 212. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 213. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 214. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 215. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 216. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 217. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 218. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 219. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 220. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 221. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 222. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 223. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 224. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 225. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 226. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 227. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 228. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 229. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 230. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

Caryn Ann, Sure, "fair game" has all those meanings. Within the context we were discussing however, I think it suggests the meaning I noted. In a political jurisdiction containing what may be the largest incarceration system in the world, with over half of the people behind bars there for things that are not violations of the Non-Aggression Principle, and laws registering people as "sex offenders" limiting where they can live, in some cases resulting in them being kept imprisoned beyond the end of their sentences, etc., I think it's bad messaging to use language that encourages "tough-on-crime" attitudes which contribute to such mistreatment. Terms like "pervert" and "predator" in this context definitely fit the bill. I've never objected to you criticizing Arvin's messaging; I criticized it myself. What I object to is formally seeking to censure or remove him for statements that I don't think have been un-libertarian, however objectionable they may have been from other perspectives, when we have not censured or removed others who have made clearly un-libertarian statements. Is our image more important than our principles? To me it is not. To the extent we have and deserve a good image it is largely from sticking to our principles. Expressing them well is important too, but distinctly secondary. In criticizing your messaging here, no, Daniel is correct, I am not trying to issue a grievance, nor am I calling for you to be censured or anything, let alone removed from the LNC! Don't worry, you are one of the last people I want to vote off the island. :-) Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE P.S. – "Allegedly" policing Arvin? You don't think trying to formally censure or suspend someone for their statements is policing them? P.P.S. – Different governments set different ages at which they decide to recognize people as adults. Their declarations of who is and who is not a child, varying as they do, are usually politics-based, not science-based, and in no way reliable or authoritative. P.P.P.S. – My personal favorite definition of "perversion" not tainted by the State is this: "Kinky is when you use a feather. Perverted is when you use the whole chicken." ;-) On Jan 31, 2018, at 1:01 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

== A statement describing a group of people as "fair game" sounds like describing them as animals to be hunted, rather than individual human beings with rights. I would reject that characterization.=== You do know that is not what that means, right? It doesn't even come from that back in the mists of time. Are you looking to just find something to nitpick? (scouring my brain to wonder what strange allusion could be made from nitpick.... and scouring.... does that have some totally unrelated association?)

fair game

English[[1]edit]

Noun[[2]edit]

[3]fair [4]game ([5]uncountable) 1. ([6]idiomatic) Actions [7]permissible by the [8]rules.

Pretending to be slow is fair game. Pretending to be injured is not. The referee ruled the unprecedented play fair game.

2. ([9]idiomatic) A [10]goal or an [11]object that may [12]legitimately be sought.

After the middle sister's call from a friend's house, her slice of cake was fair game.

3. ([13]idiomatic) An [14]acceptable subject or target for [15]criticism, [16]scrutiny, or [17]mockery.

Anyone running for office is fair game for criticism.

4. Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see [18]fair,� [19]game.: a game that is fair, that does not involve [20]cheating, etc.

== "Pervert" is a loaded term commonly applied to demonize anyone whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable.=== And is apt for predators upon children. == It has been applied to LGBTQ people and others=== I haven't. == and I don't think it is appropriate in what should be a rational discussion about human development and the capacity to consent.=== Now you get the point. In that subthread, the possibility of a pervert, molestor, whatever, impregnating a 14-year old girl was obviously on everyone's mind, and hey, as long as he has a job, it's better than another kid. Funny on how you are upset about us allegedly policing Arvin, yet you are straining at gnats to try to police me here (oh oh, is there some odd connection with gnats...... I think I am safe) === I haven't heard that Arvin ever used the term (hopefully not).=== I don't follow him any longer. But I never have seen it. === In the case of Roy Moore, he has been credibly accused of sexual assault (see [21]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations, in particular the case of Beverly Young Nelson). === He has been accused as well, including by us by implication, of DE FACTO assault due to age. ===He is also an authoritarian-leaning politician who wants to force his morality on others at the point of government guns. I don't think we owe him an apology.=== Oh.... its okay to be a hypocrite as a Party as long as it is a bad guy. Can we say he kicks puppies too? I don't think we owe him an apology either. But then again, I am not defending the normalcy of 14-year olds being a typical part of a dating pool and getting offended if someone calls someone who routinely targets same a pervert. I was playing with Barbie dolls still when I was 14. As were a lot of my friends. Some of them had clumsy sexual relationships with other barely teens. Arvin claimed that the moral value of that is exactly the same as with a 25 year old. And I have every right to think that is a perverse view. We do not raise our children today to be ready to take on adult lives at 14. We lament when children, due to unfortunate circumstances are forced into that role. We are a prosperous society that has the resources to allow an actual childhood. You can be offended that I have a very bad opinion of 14 year old American girls being part of the potential mating pool. I'll live. If that's my worst "libertarian heresy" well, burn me at the stake.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Starchild <[22]starchild@lp.org> wrote:

After some difficult deliberation, I vote no on this motion. No one has yet been able to identify anything the vice-chair said that is clearly un-libertarian, and while I continue to think that some of his outreach efforts have shown poor judgement, and have obviously upset many people, I cannot endorse the misguided set of priorities that would be implicitly endorsed by censuring someone in a case like this while failing to censure other Libertarian leaders such as William Weld last year who have said clearly un-libertarian things from a much more visible platform. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [1][23]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Starchild wrote: A statement describing a group of people as "fair game" sounds like describing them as animals to be hunted, rather than individual human beings with rights. I would reject that characterization. "Pervert" is a loaded term commonly applied to demonize anyone whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable. It has been applied to LGBTQ people and others, and I don't think it is appropriate in what should be a rational discussion about human development and the capacity to consent. I haven't heard that Arvin ever used the term (hopefully not). In the case of Roy Moore, he has been credibly accused of sexual assault (see [2][24]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_ misconduct_allegation s, in particular the case of Beverly Young Nelson). He is also an authoritarian-leaning politician who wants to force his morality on others at the point of government guns. I don't think we owe him an apology. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3][25]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again - does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to move a resolution to apologize to Roy Moore? On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][26]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a pervert (they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they have a job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare. Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of what he said it IS awful. And that�s what our members heard. Many of them just as �pure� as Arvin.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <[2][27]starchild@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert". I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the discussion more civil. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3][28]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1][4][29]votevohra@gmail.com> wrote: Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart:

�If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It�s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?� ----Mary J. Ruwart

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2][5][30]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote: I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight <[1][2][3][6][31]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3][4][7][32]tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [2][3][4][5][8][33]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5][6][9][34]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6][7][10][35]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7][8][11][36]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8][9][12][37]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9][10][13][38]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10][11][14][39]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11][12][15][40]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12][13][16][41]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13][14][17][42]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14][15][18][43]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15][16][19][44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business -- Arvin Vohra [16][17][20][45]www.VoteVohra.com [17][18][21][46]VoteVohra@gmail.com [19][47](301) 320-3634 References 1. mailto:[20][22][48]david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:[21][23][49]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:[22][24][50]tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:[23][25][51]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [24][26][52]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business 6. mailto:[25][27][53]tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:[26][28][54]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. [27][29][55]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business 9. mailto:[28][30][56]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[29][31][57]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[30][32][58]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [31][33][59]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business 13. mailto:[32][34][60]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[33][35][61]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [34][36][62]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business 16. [35][37][63]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:[36][38][64]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[39][65]votevohra@gmail.com 2. mailto:[40][66]david.demarest@lp.org 3. mailto:[41][67]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 4. mailto:[42][68]tim.hagan@lp.org 5. mailto:[43][69]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. [44][70]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 7. mailto:[45][71]tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:[46][72]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. [47][73]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 10. mailto:[48][74]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:[49][75]tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:[50][76]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. [51][77]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:[52][78]tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:[53][79]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. [54][80]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 17. [55][81]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 18. mailto:[56][82]VoteVohra@gmail.com 19. tel:[83](301) 320-3634 20. mailto:[57][84]david.demarest@lp.org 21. mailto:[58][85]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 22. mailto:[59][86]tim.hagan@lp.org 23. mailto:[60][87]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 24. [61][88]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 25. mailto:[62][89]tim.hagan@lp.org 26. mailto:[63][90]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 27. [64][91]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 28. mailto:[65][92]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:[66][93]tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:[67][94]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. [68][95]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:[69][96]tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:[70][97]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. [71][98]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. [72][99]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 36. mailto:[73][100]VoteVohra@gmail.com References

1. [4]mailto:[101]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. [5]mailto:[102]starchild@lp.org 3. [6]mailto:[103]RealReform@earthlink.net 4. [7]mailto:[104]votevohra@gmail.com 5. [8]mailto:[105]david.demarest@lp.org 6. [9]mailto:[106]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 7. [10]mailto:[107]tim.hagan@lp.org 8. [11]mailto:[108]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. [12][109]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 10. [13]mailto:[110]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. [14]mailto:[111]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [15][112]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 13. [16]mailto:[113]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 14. [17]mailto:[114]tim.hagan@lp.org 15. [18]mailto:[115]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. [19][116]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 17. [20]mailto:[117]tim.hagan@lp.org 18. [21]mailto:[118]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. [22][119]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. [23][120]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 21. [24]mailto:[121]VoteVohra@gmail.com 22. [25]mailto:[122]david.demarest@lp.org 23. [26]mailto:[123]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 24. [27]mailto:[124]tim.hagan@lp.org 25. [28]mailto:[125]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 26. [29][126]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 27. [30]mailto:[127]tim.hagan@lp.org 28. [31]mailto:[128]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. [32][129]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. [33]mailto:[130]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 31. [34]mailto:[131]tim.hagan@lp.org 32. [35]mailto:[132]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 33. [36][133]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 34. [37]mailto:[134]tim.hagan@lp.org 35. [38]mailto:[135]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. [39][136]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. [40][137]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 38. [41]mailto:[138]VoteVohra@gmail.com 39. [42]mailto:[139]votevohra@gmail.com 40. [43]mailto:[140]david.demarest@lp.org 41. [44]mailto:[141]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 42. [45]mailto:[142]tim.hagan@lp.org 43. [46]mailto:[143]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 44. [47][144]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 45. [48]mailto:[145]tim.hagan@lp.org 46. [49]mailto:[146]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. [50][147]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 48. [51]mailto:[148]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 49. [52]mailto:[149]tim.hagan@lp.org 50. [53]mailto:[150]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 51. [54][151]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 52. [55]mailto:[152]tim.hagan@lp.org 53. [56]mailto:[153]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. [57][154]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. [58][155]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 56. [59]mailto:[156]VoteVohra@gmail.com 57. [60]mailto:[157]david.demarest@lp.org 58. [61]mailto:[158]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 59. [62]mailto:[159]tim.hagan@lp.org 60. [63]mailto:[160]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 61. [64][161]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 62. [65]mailto:[162]tim.hagan@lp.org 63. [66]mailto:[163]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. [67][164]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. [68]mailto:[165]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 66. [69]mailto:[166]tim.hagan@lp.org 67. [70]mailto:[167]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 68. [71][168]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 69. [72]mailto:[169]tim.hagan@lp.org 70. [73]mailto:[170]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. [74][171]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. [75][172]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 73. [76]mailto:[173]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[174]RealReform@earthlink.net 2. [175]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations 3. mailto:[176]RealReform@earthlink.net 4. mailto:[177]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 5. mailto:[178]starchild@lp.org 6. mailto:[179]RealReform@earthlink.net 7. mailto:[180]votevohra@gmail.com 8. mailto:[181]david.demarest@lp.org 9. mailto:[182]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[183]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[184]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [185]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 13. mailto:[186]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[187]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [188]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 16. mailto:[189]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 17. mailto:[190]tim.hagan@lp.org 18. mailto:[191]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. [192]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. mailto:[193]tim.hagan@lp.org 21. mailto:[194]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 22. [195]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 23. [196]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 24. mailto:[197]VoteVohra@gmail.com 25. mailto:[198]david.demarest@lp.org 26. mailto:[199]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 27. mailto:[200]tim.hagan@lp.org 28. mailto:[201]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. [202]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. mailto:[203]tim.hagan@lp.org 31. mailto:[204]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 32. [205]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 33. mailto:[206]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 34. mailto:[207]tim.hagan@lp.org 35. mailto:[208]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. [209]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. mailto:[210]tim.hagan@lp.org 38. mailto:[211]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 39. [212]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 40. [213]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 41. mailto:[214]VoteVohra@gmail.com 42. mailto:[215]votevohra@gmail.com 43. mailto:[216]david.demarest@lp.org 44. mailto:[217]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 45. mailto:[218]tim.hagan@lp.org 46. mailto:[219]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. [220]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 48. mailto:[221]tim.hagan@lp.org 49. mailto:[222]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 50. [223]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 51. mailto:[224]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 52. mailto:[225]tim.hagan@lp.org 53. mailto:[226]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. [227]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. mailto:[228]tim.hagan@lp.org 56. mailto:[229]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 57. [230]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 58. [231]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 59. mailto:[232]VoteVohra@gmail.com 60. mailto:[233]david.demarest@lp.org 61. mailto:[234]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 62. mailto:[235]tim.hagan@lp.org 63. mailto:[236]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. [237]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. mailto:[238]tim.hagan@lp.org 66. mailto:[239]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 67. [240]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 68. mailto:[241]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 69. mailto:[242]tim.hagan@lp.org 70. mailto:[243]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. [244]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. mailto:[245]tim.hagan@lp.org 73. mailto:[246]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 74. [247]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

75. [248]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 76. mailto:[249]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

Visible links 1. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fair_game&action=edit§ion=1 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fair_game&action=edit§ion=2 3. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fair#English 4. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/game#English 5. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable 6. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#idiomatic 7. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/permissible 8. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rule 9. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#idiomatic 10. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/goal 11. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/object 12. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legitimately 13. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#idiomatic 14. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acceptable 15. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/criticism 16. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scrutiny 17. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mockery 18. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fair#English 19. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/game#English 20. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheat 21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations 22. mailto:starchild@lp.org 23. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegation 25. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 26. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 27. mailto:starchild@lp.org 28. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 29. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 30. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 31. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 32. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 35. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 36. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 37. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 38. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 39. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 40. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 41. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 42. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 43. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 44. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 45. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 46. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 47. tel:(301) 320-3634 48. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 49. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 50. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 51. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 52. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 53. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 54. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 55. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 56. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 57. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 58. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 59. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 60. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 61. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 62. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 63. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 64. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 65. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 66. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 67. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 68. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 69. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 70. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 71. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 72. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 73. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 74. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 75. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 76. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 77. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 78. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 79. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 80. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 81. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 82. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 83. tel:(301) 320-3634 84. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 85. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 86. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 87. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 88. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 89. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 90. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 91. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 92. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 93. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 94. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 95. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 96. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 97. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 98. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 99. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 100. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 101. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 102. mailto:starchild@lp.org 103. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 104. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 105. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 106. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 107. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 108. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 109. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 110. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 111. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 112. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 113. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 114. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 115. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 116. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 117. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 118. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 119. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 120. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 121. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 122. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 123. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 124. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 125. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 126. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 127. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 128. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 129. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 130. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 131. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 132. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 133. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 134. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 135. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 136. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 137. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 138. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 139. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 140. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 141. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 142. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 143. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 144. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 145. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 146. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 147. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 148. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 149. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 150. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 151. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 152. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 153. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 154. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 155. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 156. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 157. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 158. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 159. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 160. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 161. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 162. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 163. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 164. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 165. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 166. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 167. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 168. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 169. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 170. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 171. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 172. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 173. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 174. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 175. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations 176. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 177. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 178. mailto:starchild@lp.org 179. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 180. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 181. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 182. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 183. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 184. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 185. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 186. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 187. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 188. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 189. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 190. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 191. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 192. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 193. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 194. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 195. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 196. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 197. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 198. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 199. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 200. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 201. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 202. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 203. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 204. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 205. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 206. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 207. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 208. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 209. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 210. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 211. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 212. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 213. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 214. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 215. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 216. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 217. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 218. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 219. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 220. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 221. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 222. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 223. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 224. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 225. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 226. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 227. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 228. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 229. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 230. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 231. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 232. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 233. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 234. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 235. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 236. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 237. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 238. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 239. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 240. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 241. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 242. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 243. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 244. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 245. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 246. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 247. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 248. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 249. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

Hidden links: 251. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fair_game#mw-head 252. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fair_game#p-search

Starchild, I am not able to count this vote from you, as it was cast after the voting deadline. -Alicia On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Starchild <starchild@lp.org> wrote:

After some difficult deliberation, I vote no on this motion. No one has yet been able to identify anything the vice-chair said that is clearly un-libertarian, and while I continue to think that some of his outreach efforts have shown poor judgement, and have obviously upset many people, I cannot endorse the misguided set of priorities that would be implicitly endorsed by censuring someone in a case like this while failing to censure other Libertarian leaders such as William Weld last year who have said clearly un-libertarian things from a much more visible platform.

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [1]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE

On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Starchild wrote:

A statement describing a group of people as "fair game" sounds like describing them as animals to be hunted, rather than individual human beings with rights. I would reject that characterization. "Pervert" is a loaded term commonly applied to demonize anyone whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable. It has been applied to LGBTQ people and others, and I don't think it is appropriate in what should be a rational discussion about human development and the capacity to consent. I haven't heard that Arvin ever used the term (hopefully not). In the case of Roy Moore, he has been credibly accused of sexual assault (see [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegation s, in particular the case of Beverly Young Nelson). He is also an authoritarian-leaning politician who wants to force his morality on others at the point of government guns. I don't think we owe him an apology. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again -

does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to move a

resolution to apologize to Roy Moore?

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos

<[1]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote:

I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication

of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a pervert

(they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they have a

job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare.

Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of what he

said it IS awful. And that�s what our members heard. Many of them

just as �pure� as Arvin.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <[2]starchild@lp.org> wrote:

Caryn Ann,

Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate

on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to

imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so

accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems

uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert".

I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the

discussion more civil.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

[3]RealReform@earthlink.net

(415) 625-FREE

On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And of course that was not the point.

I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of

"The

Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and

ya

know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert

with a

job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare.

This is called using people.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra

<[1][4]votevohra@gmail.com>

wrote:

Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart:

�If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early

days of

our

Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War

on

Drugs,

claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation

was

theft.

All of these positions were considered inflammatory and

offensive

to

the majority of people outside the LP for most of the

1980s,

regardless

of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they

are

seriously embraced or considered across the political

spectrum

precisely because we spoke out. It�s impossible to affect

serious

change without offending some listeners. How can anyone

believe

that

the LP supports free speech when its own members are

punished for

engaging in it?� ----Mary J. Ruwart

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM,

<[1][2][5]david.demarest@lp.org>

wrote:

I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask

others to

vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic

meeting

to

consider suspension.

Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to

stop

speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He

has

correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a

better

job

of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need

to step

up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track

toward

our shared goal of freedom.

It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms.

Mattson

has

aptly described as a circular firing squad, this

political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters

and

pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our

principles

but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough

damage to

the

Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of

self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a

death-spiral of

reworded censure motions.

Good grief - enough already!

~David Pratt Demarest

On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I hope my statement that the censure will fail is

disproven. I am

disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This

censure is

woefully

inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as

nothing at

all.

What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics.

That

is

not

the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight

<[1][2][3][6]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote:

I vote yes. However I feel censure is

insufficient and

look

forward to

the electronic meeting.

Thanks,

Patrick McKnight

Region 8 Rep

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan

<[1][2][3][4][7]tim.hagan@lp.org>

wrote:

I vote yes.

---

Tim Hagan

Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee

On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by

January 30,

2018 at

11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan

Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra

for

repeated

public

comments which have presented libertarian ideas

in an

inflammatory

and

sometimes offensive manner not conducive to

Libertarian

leaders and

candidates for public office winning hearts and

minds

for

those

ideas.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list

[2][3][4][5][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

[3][4][5][6][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin

/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:[5][6][7][10]tim.hagan@lp.org

2. mailto:[6][7][8][11]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

3. [7][8][9][12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma

ilman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

1. mailto:[9][10][13]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

2. mailto:[10][11][14]tim.hagan@lp.org

3. mailto:[11][12][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

4. [12][13][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/

mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

5. mailto:[13][14][17]tim.hagan@lp.org

6. mailto:[14][15][18]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

7. [15][16][19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/

mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

--

Arvin Vohra

[16][17][20]www.VoteVohra.com

[17][18][21]VoteVohra@gmail.com

[19](301) 320-3634

References

1. mailto:[20][22]david.demarest@lp.org

2. mailto:[21][23]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

3. mailto:[22][24]tim.hagan@lp.org

4. mailto:[23][25]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

5.

[24][26]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

6. mailto:[25][27]tim.hagan@lp.org

7. mailto:[26][28]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

8.

[27][29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

9. mailto:[28][30]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

10. mailto:[29][31]tim.hagan@lp.org

11. mailto:[30][32]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

12.

[31][33]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

13. mailto:[32][34]tim.hagan@lp.org

14. mailto:[33][35]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

15.

[34][36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

16. [35][37]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

17. mailto:[36][38]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:[39]votevohra@gmail.com

2. mailto:[40]david.demarest@lp.org

3. mailto:[41]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

4. mailto:[42]tim.hagan@lp.org

5. mailto:[43]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

6. [44]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin

7. mailto:[45]tim.hagan@lp.org

8. mailto:[46]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

9. [47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma

10. mailto:[48]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

11. mailto:[49]tim.hagan@lp.org

12. mailto:[50]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

13. [51]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

14. mailto:[52]tim.hagan@lp.org

15. mailto:[53]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

16. [54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

17. [55]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

18. mailto:[56]VoteVohra@gmail.com

19. tel:(301) 320-3634

20. mailto:[57]david.demarest@lp.org

21. mailto:[58]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

22. mailto:[59]tim.hagan@lp.org

23. mailto:[60]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

24. [61]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

25. mailto:[62]tim.hagan@lp.org

26. mailto:[63]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

27. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

28. mailto:[65]patrick.mcknight@lp.org

29. mailto:[66]tim.hagan@lp.org

30. mailto:[67]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

31. [68]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

32. mailto:[69]tim.hagan@lp.org

33. mailto:[70]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

34. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

35. [72]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

36. mailto:[73]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. [4]mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org

2. [5]mailto:starchild@lp.org

3. [6]mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net

4. [7]mailto:votevohra@gmail.com

5. [8]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

6. [9]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

7. [10]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

8. [11]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

9. [12]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin

10. [13]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

11. [14]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

12. [15]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma

13. [16]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

14. [17]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

15. [18]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

16. [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/

17. [20]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

18. [21]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

19. [22]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/

20. [23]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

21. [24]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

22. [25]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

23. [26]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

24. [27]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

25. [28]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

26. [29]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

27. [30]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

28. [31]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

29. [32]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

30. [33]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

31. [34]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

32. [35]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

33. [36]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

34. [37]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

35. [38]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

36. [39]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

37. [40]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

38. [41]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

39. [42]mailto:votevohra@gmail.com

40. [43]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

41. [44]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

42. [45]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

43. [46]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

44. [47]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin

45. [48]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

46. [49]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

47. [50]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma

48. [51]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

49. [52]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

50. [53]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

51. [54]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

52. [55]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

53. [56]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

54. [57]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

55. [58]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

56. [59]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

57. [60]mailto:david.demarest@lp.org

58. [61]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

59. [62]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

60. [63]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

61. [64]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

62. [65]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

63. [66]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

64. [67]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

65. [68]mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org

66. [69]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

67. [70]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

68. [71]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

69. [72]mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org

70. [73]mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org

71. [74]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

72. [75]http://www.VoteVohra.com/

73. [76]mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_ allegations 3. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 5. mailto:starchild@lp.org 6. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 7. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 8. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 9. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 13. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 16. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 17. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 18. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 21. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 22. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 23. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 24. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 25. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 26. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 27. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 28. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 31. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 32. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 33. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 34. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 35. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 38. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 39. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 40. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 41. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 42. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 43. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 44. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 45. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 46. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 48. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 49. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 50. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 51. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 52. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 53. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 56. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 57. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 58. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 59. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 60. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 61. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 62. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 63. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 66. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 67. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 68. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 69. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 70. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 73. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 74. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 75. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 76. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

Starchild, I am not able to count this vote from you, as it was cast after the voting deadline. -Alicia On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Starchild <[1]starchild@lp.org> wrote: After some difficult deliberation, I vote no on this motion. No one has yet been able to identify anything the vice-chair said that is clearly un-libertarian, and while I continue to think that some of his outreach efforts have shown poor judgement, and have obviously upset many people, I cannot endorse the misguided set of priorities that would be implicitly endorsed by censuring someone in a case like this while failing to censure other Libertarian leaders such as William Weld last year who have said clearly un-libertarian things from a much more visible platform. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [1][2]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 31, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Starchild wrote: A statement describing a group of people as "fair game" sounds like describing them as animals to be hunted, rather than individual human beings with rights. I would reject that characterization. "Pervert" is a loaded term commonly applied to demonize anyone whose sexual habits are not considered acceptable. It has been applied to LGBTQ people and others, and I don't think it is appropriate in what should be a rational discussion about human development and the capacity to consent. I haven't heard that Arvin ever used the term (hopefully not). In the case of Roy Moore, he has been credibly accused of sexual assault (see [2][3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_ misconduct_allegation s, in particular the case of Beverly Young Nelson). He is also an authoritarian-leaning politician who wants to force his morality on others at the point of government guns. I don't think we owe him an apology. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3][4]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And again if 14 year old girls are typically fair game- I ask again - does anyone defending that statement here have the fortitude to move a resolution to apologize to Roy Moore? On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <[1][5]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org> wrote: I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication of what he said. He would rather even someone he thinks is a pervert (they do exist - and they do troll after kids) as long as they have a job to impregnate a 14 year old than another kid. Because welfare. Yes - when put in the stark cold reality of the implications of what he said it IS awful. And that�s what our members heard. Many of them just as �pure� as Arvin. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:29 PM Starchild <[2][6]starchild@lp.org> wrote: Caryn Ann, Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert". I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the discussion more civil. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee [3][7]RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1][4][8]votevohra@gmail.com> wrote: Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: �If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It�s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?� ----Mary J. Ruwart On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2][5][9]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote: I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight <[1][2][3][6][10]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3][4][7][11]tim.hagan@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list [2][3][4][5][8][12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5][6][9][13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6][7][10][14]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7][8][11][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8][9][12][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9][10][13][17]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10][11][14][18]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11][12][15][19]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12][13][16][20]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13][14][17][21]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14][15][18][22]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15][16][19][23]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business -- Arvin Vohra [16][17][20][24]www.VoteVohra.com [17][18][21][25]VoteVohra@gmail.com [19][26](301) 320-3634 References 1. mailto:[20][22][27]david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:[21][23][28]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:[22][24][29]tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:[23][25][30]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [24][26][31]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business 6. mailto:[25][27][32]tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:[26][28][33]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. [27][29][34]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business 9. mailto:[28][30][35]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[29][31][36]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[30][32][37]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [31][33][38]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business 13. mailto:[32][34][39]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[33][35][40]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [34][36][41]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc- business 16. [35][37][42]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:[36][38][43]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[39][44]votevohra@gmail.com 2. mailto:[40][45]david.demarest@lp.org 3. mailto:[41][46]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 4. mailto:[42][47]tim.hagan@lp.org 5. mailto:[43][48]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. [44][49]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 7. mailto:[45][50]tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:[46][51]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. [47][52]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 10. mailto:[48][53]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:[49][54]tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:[50][55]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. [51][56]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:[52][57]tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:[53][58]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. [54][59]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 17. [55][60]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 18. mailto:[56][61]VoteVohra@gmail.com 19. tel:[62](301) 320-3634 20. mailto:[57][63]david.demarest@lp.org 21. mailto:[58][64]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 22. mailto:[59][65]tim.hagan@lp.org 23. mailto:[60][66]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 24. [61][67]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 25. mailto:[62][68]tim.hagan@lp.org 26. mailto:[63][69]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 27. [64][70]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 28. mailto:[65][71]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:[66][72]tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:[67][73]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. [68][74]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:[69][75]tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:[70][76]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. [71][77]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. [72][78]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 36. mailto:[73][79]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. [4]mailto:[80]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 2. [5]mailto:[81]starchild@lp.org 3. [6]mailto:[82]RealReform@earthlink.net 4. [7]mailto:[83]votevohra@gmail.com 5. [8]mailto:[84]david.demarest@lp.org 6. [9]mailto:[85]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 7. [10]mailto:[86]tim.hagan@lp.org 8. [11]mailto:[87]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. [12][88]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 10. [13]mailto:[89]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. [14]mailto:[90]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [15][91]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 13. [16]mailto:[92]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 14. [17]mailto:[93]tim.hagan@lp.org 15. [18]mailto:[94]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. [19][95]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 17. [20]mailto:[96]tim.hagan@lp.org 18. [21]mailto:[97]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. [22][98]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. [23][99]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 21. [24]mailto:[100]VoteVohra@gmail.com 22. [25]mailto:[101]david.demarest@lp.org 23. [26]mailto:[102]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 24. [27]mailto:[103]tim.hagan@lp.org 25. [28]mailto:[104]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 26. [29][105]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 27. [30]mailto:[106]tim.hagan@lp.org 28. [31]mailto:[107]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. [32][108]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. [33]mailto:[109]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 31. [34]mailto:[110]tim.hagan@lp.org 32. [35]mailto:[111]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 33. [36][112]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 34. [37]mailto:[113]tim.hagan@lp.org 35. [38]mailto:[114]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. [39][115]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. [40][116]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 38. [41]mailto:[117]VoteVohra@gmail.com 39. [42]mailto:[118]votevohra@gmail.com 40. [43]mailto:[119]david.demarest@lp.org 41. [44]mailto:[120]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 42. [45]mailto:[121]tim.hagan@lp.org 43. [46]mailto:[122]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 44. [47][123]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 45. [48]mailto:[124]tim.hagan@lp.org 46. [49]mailto:[125]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. [50][126]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 48. [51]mailto:[127]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 49. [52]mailto:[128]tim.hagan@lp.org 50. [53]mailto:[129]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 51. [54][130]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 52. [55]mailto:[131]tim.hagan@lp.org 53. [56]mailto:[132]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. [57][133]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. [58][134]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 56. [59]mailto:[135]VoteVohra@gmail.com 57. [60]mailto:[136]david.demarest@lp.org 58. [61]mailto:[137]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 59. [62]mailto:[138]tim.hagan@lp.org 60. [63]mailto:[139]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 61. [64][140]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 62. [65]mailto:[141]tim.hagan@lp.org 63. [66]mailto:[142]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. [67][143]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. [68]mailto:[144]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 66. [69]mailto:[145]tim.hagan@lp.org 67. [70]mailto:[146]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 68. [71][147]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 69. [72]mailto:[148]tim.hagan@lp.org 70. [73]mailto:[149]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. [74][150]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. [75][151]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 73. [76]mailto:[152]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:[153]RealReform@earthlink.net 2. [154]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations 3. mailto:[155]RealReform@earthlink.net 4. mailto:[156]caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 5. mailto:[157]starchild@lp.org 6. mailto:[158]RealReform@earthlink.net 7. mailto:[159]votevohra@gmail.com 8. mailto:[160]david.demarest@lp.org 9. mailto:[161]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[162]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[163]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [164]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 13. mailto:[165]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[166]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [167]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 16. mailto:[168]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 17. mailto:[169]tim.hagan@lp.org 18. mailto:[170]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 19. [171]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 20. mailto:[172]tim.hagan@lp.org 21. mailto:[173]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 22. [174]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 23. [175]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 24. mailto:[176]VoteVohra@gmail.com 25. mailto:[177]david.demarest@lp.org 26. mailto:[178]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 27. mailto:[179]tim.hagan@lp.org 28. mailto:[180]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 29. [181]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 30. mailto:[182]tim.hagan@lp.org 31. mailto:[183]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 32. [184]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 33. mailto:[185]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 34. mailto:[186]tim.hagan@lp.org 35. mailto:[187]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 36. [188]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 37. mailto:[189]tim.hagan@lp.org 38. mailto:[190]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 39. [191]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 40. [192]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 41. mailto:[193]VoteVohra@gmail.com 42. mailto:[194]votevohra@gmail.com 43. mailto:[195]david.demarest@lp.org 44. mailto:[196]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 45. mailto:[197]tim.hagan@lp.org 46. mailto:[198]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 47. [199]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 48. mailto:[200]tim.hagan@lp.org 49. mailto:[201]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 50. [202]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 51. mailto:[203]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 52. mailto:[204]tim.hagan@lp.org 53. mailto:[205]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 54. [206]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 55. mailto:[207]tim.hagan@lp.org 56. mailto:[208]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 57. [209]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 58. [210]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 59. mailto:[211]VoteVohra@gmail.com 60. mailto:[212]david.demarest@lp.org 61. mailto:[213]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 62. mailto:[214]tim.hagan@lp.org 63. mailto:[215]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 64. [216]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 65. mailto:[217]tim.hagan@lp.org 66. mailto:[218]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 67. [219]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 68. mailto:[220]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 69. mailto:[221]tim.hagan@lp.org 70. mailto:[222]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 71. [223]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 72. mailto:[224]tim.hagan@lp.org 73. mailto:[225]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 74. [226]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 75. [227]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 76. mailto:[228]VoteVohra@gmail.com References 1. mailto:starchild@lp.org 2. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegation 4. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 5. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 6. mailto:starchild@lp.org 7. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 8. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 9. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 10. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 14. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 17. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 18. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 19. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 20. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 21. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 22. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 23. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 24. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 25. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 26. tel:(301) 320-3634 27. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 28. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 36. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 37. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 38. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 39. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 40. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 41. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 42. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 43. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 44. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 45. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 46. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 47. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 48. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 49. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 50. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 51. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 52. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 53. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 54. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 55. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 56. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 57. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 58. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 59. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 60. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 61. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 62. tel:(301) 320-3634 63. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 64. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 65. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 66. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 67. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 68. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 69. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 70. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 71. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 72. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 73. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 74. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 75. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 76. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 77. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 78. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 79. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 80. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 81. mailto:starchild@lp.org 82. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 83. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 84. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 85. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 86. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 87. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 88. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 89. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 90. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 91. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 92. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 93. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 94. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 95. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 96. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 97. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 98. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 99. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 100. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 101. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 102. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 103. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 104. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 105. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 106. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 107. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 108. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 109. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 110. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 111. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 112. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 113. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 114. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 115. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 116. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 117. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 118. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 119. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 120. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 121. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 122. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 123. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 124. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 125. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 126. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 127. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 128. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 129. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 130. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 131. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 132. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 133. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 134. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 135. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 136. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 137. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 138. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 139. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 140. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 141. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 142. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 143. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 144. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 145. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 146. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 147. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 148. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 149. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 150. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 151. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 152. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 153. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 154. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations 155. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 156. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos@lp.org 157. mailto:starchild@lp.org 158. mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net 159. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 160. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 161. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 162. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 163. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 164. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 165. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 166. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 167. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 168. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 169. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 170. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 171. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 172. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 173. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 174. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ 175. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 176. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 177. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 178. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 179. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 180. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 181. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 182. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 183. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 184. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 185. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 186. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 187. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 188. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 189. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 190. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 191. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 192. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 193. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 194. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 195. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 196. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 197. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 198. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 199. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 200. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 201. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 202. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 203. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 204. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 205. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 206. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 207. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 208. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 209. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 210. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 211. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 212. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 213. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 214. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 215. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 216. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 217. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 218. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 219. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 220. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 221. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 222. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 223. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 224. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 225. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 226. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 227. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 228. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com

Whoops... Here comes another grievance. Someone was offended. This could get ridiculous. During our 4 years of infighting in La which pre-dated my involvement in the Party , during the last round of it there were 72 grievances submitted to our judicial committee. It was so fun and productive that I was thinking I needed to eat glass to reproduce euphoria of the experience. We are so lucky though because we seem to be devolving in that direction. I don’t think Starchild intends to issue a grievance and is just making a point. That said this could get silly as I said. I think it’s clear we need to tighten up the policy manual to avoid some “endless wars”. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2018, at 11:29 PM, Starchild <starchild@lp.org> wrote:

Caryn Ann,

Mary Ruwart's comment is clearly weighing in on our debate on this motion, and her stance seems plain enough. It's hard to imagine she'd object to us seeing her remarks in a timely manner, so accusing Arvin of "using people" by publishing them here seems uncalled for. As does the use of demonizing epithets like "pervert". I frankly find that language offensive, and hope we can keep the discussion more civil.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE

...

On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And of course that was not the point. I would love to speak with Dr. Ruwart on this, the author of "The Compassion of Libertarianism" about how we need less empathy and ya know, if a 14 year old gets pregnant, might as well be a pervert with a job rather than a broke kid. Because welfare. This is called using people.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

Forward from Dr. Mary Ruwart: “If such motions had circulated in the LNC in the early days of our Party, no LNC member would have spoken out against the War on Drugs, claimed that gays had rights, or pointed out that taxation was theft. All of these positions were considered inflammatory and offensive to the majority of people outside the LP for most of the 1980s, regardless of how carefully these positions were presented. Now, they are seriously embraced or considered across the political spectrum precisely because we spoke out. It’s impossible to affect serious change without offending some listeners. How can anyone believe that the LP supports free speech when its own members are punished for engaging in it?” ----Mary J. Ruwart

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM, <[1][2]david.demarest@lp.org> wrote: I change my vote to "YES" on the censure motion and ask others to vote 'YES' and request the cancellation of the electronic meeting to consider suspension. Arvin has audaciously and courageously challenged us to stop speaking in tongues about our Libertarian principles. He has correctly identified the fact that the opposition does a better job of describing our policy and positions than we do. We need to step up to the plate with equal courage and get us back on track toward our shared goal of freedom. It is time to end this game of Russian roulette that Ms. Mattson has aptly described as a circular firing squad, this political-correctness nightmare of timidity before voters and pandemic get-elected-itis at the expense of not only our principles but any semblance of rationality. We have done enough damage to the Libertarian cause. Let us cease this endless cycle of self-destruction before we plunge ourselves into a death-spiral of reworded censure motions. Good grief - enough already! ~David Pratt Demarest On 2018-01-29 22:11, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I hope my statement that the censure will fail is disproven. I am disappointed in the yes votes changing to no. This censure is woefully inadequate, but it is not as woefully inadequate as nothing at all. What we heard from Arvin is a defense of Trump tactics. That is not the LP I work for, recruit for, and donate for. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Patrick McKnight

<[1][2][3]patrick.mcknight@lp.org> wrote: I vote yes. However I feel censure is insufficient and look forward to the electronic meeting. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Tim Hagan <[1][2][3][4]tim.hagan@lp.org>

wrote: I vote yes. --- Tim Hagan Treasurer, Libertarian National Committee On 2018-01-20 19:03, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list

[2][3][4][5]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org [3][4][5][6]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin /mailman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[5][6][7]tim.hagan@lp.org 2. mailto:[6][7][8]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 3. [7][8][9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/lnc-business References 1. mailto:[9][10]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 2. mailto:[10][11]tim.hagan@lp.org 3. mailto:[11][12]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 4. [12][13]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 5. mailto:[13][14]tim.hagan@lp.org 6. mailto:[14][15]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 7. [15][16]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/lnc-business -- Arvin Vohra [16][17]www.VoteVohra.com [17][18]VoteVohra@gmail.com [19](301) 320-3634 References 1. mailto:[20]david.demarest@lp.org 2. mailto:[21]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 3. mailto:[22]tim.hagan@lp.org 4. mailto:[23]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 5. [24]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 6. mailto:[25]tim.hagan@lp.org 7. mailto:[26]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 8. [27]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 9. mailto:[28]patrick.mcknight@lp.org 10. mailto:[29]tim.hagan@lp.org 11. mailto:[30]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 12. [31]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 13. mailto:[32]tim.hagan@lp.org 14. mailto:[33]Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 15. [34]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 16. [35]http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 17. mailto:[36]VoteVohra@gmail.com

References

1. mailto:votevohra@gmail.com 2. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 3. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 4. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 5. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 6. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin 7. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 8. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/ma 10. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 11. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 12. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 13. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 14. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 15. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 16. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 17. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 18. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com 19. tel:(301) 320-3634 20. mailto:david.demarest@lp.org 21. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 22. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 23. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 24. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 25. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 26. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 27. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 28. mailto:patrick.mcknight@lp.org 29. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 30. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 31. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 32. mailto:tim.hagan@lp.org 33. mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org 34. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 35. http://www.VoteVohra.com/ 36. mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com