Vohra responds to criticism again

Arvin Vohra has faced criticism and some calls for his resignation or removal as LNC Vice-Chair for a series of facebook posts he has made about the US military. He previously responded to this criticism but has now issued a new response, which follows, perhaps because his previous answer was criticized for being too long. For related stories see here, here, here, and here.


An Open Letter to Military Veterans:

During the last days, I’ve spoken to dozens of you, both privately and
publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation.

To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations
dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am
truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military
veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly
by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent
exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose.

Those who join the military want to give the best parts of themselves to a
noble cause. All of us have good and bad parts; the military demands the
best parts, the nobility, self sacrifice, and discipline.

But then it coldly misuses those best parts. It takes what is noble, and
uses it for purposes that are ignoble. It takes the parts of you that are
honorable, and uses those in a policy that is dishonorable.

Many of you have shared your stories of reclaiming that honor, which had
been misused and tainted by the military industrial complex, and the
corrupt politicians it controls. You stopped fighting imaginary foreign
enemies, and fought the real domestic enemies. You realized that those
abroad don’t oppose our freedoms, but those in our government do.

You took the discipline you learned in the military, and the honor you were
born with, and used it against the military industrial complex. You became
noble in both intention and action. You became honorable both in your
motivations and in your results.

Now I ask you to help others find that path to fighting the real enemies at
home. I ask you to help others never have their heroism deformed in service
to an evil cause. I ask you to help others recognize what you already
recognize: the politicians and corporations that control military policy
are evil. They are using the military for evil. Help others regain their
true heroism, even before corrupt military policy tries to take it.

1. If you are one of the many military veterans running for office, reflect
your opposition to the miltary’s misuse of heroism in your bio. Instead of
saying “Fred is a Korean War veteran,” say “Fred is a Korean War veteran
who opposes current immoral military policy.” Or “Fred is an anti-war
Korean War veteran.” Or “Fred is a Korean war veteran who wants to shut
down foreign military bases and bring the troops home.”

The fact is, most of you will not win. But all of you will have your bios
read by hundreds, thousands, or millions of people. If you just say that
you are a veteran, everyone will take that as an endorsement of military
policy and the military industrial complex. Your campaign will literally
encourage others to squander their heroism as part of immoral military
policy, to be a part of one of the most destructive institutions on the
planet.

If you boldly oppose military policy in your bio, then your campaign will
help people find the path to fighting the true enemies in the military
industrial complex, rather than the ones they fabricate.

2. If you want to help people find better uses for their heroism, better
rites of passage, better ways to find opportunity, while at the same time
taking easy access to manpower away from the military industrial complex,
join this group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/militarycounterrecruitment/?ref=group_cover

3. Use your social media and traditional media to demand that the U.S.
government shut down foreign military bases, cease involvement in foreign
civil wars, and bring the troops home.

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra

(Personal, not official post)


Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634

41 thoughts on “Vohra responds to criticism again

  1. paulie Post author

    Katz to LNC:

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    4:12 PM (11 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    Colleagues:

    Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I’ve seen some claiming, these comments are “true but embarrassing.” I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong – either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.

    I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote ‘no’ on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never “off the clock.” Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our “hats” in public. That’s one reason I strive for a low social media profile – that’s my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.

    I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as ‘within office.’ As I’ve discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.

    Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.

    It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. It is our job, to agree with Mr. Somes, to construct a message so good, so coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud that no one: board member, candidate, or member, can be taken to speak for the party if they contradict that messaging or its tone. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.

    Further, that hasn’t happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let’s deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board’s activities.)

    Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions – and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party – Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.

    In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I’d like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I’d like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I’d like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions – while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.

    Joshua A. Katz

  2. Andrew McCarrick

    And this is why the L.P. has issues. Are you anti war or not? What’s your messaging here? If you are anti-war, then you cannot logically in good conscious support anyone under any circumstances that willingly signs up for a war machine that said recruit should have done research into before they joined. Defending the U.S. Military is to defend ignorance on the part of any and all recruits. They should, without hesitation, be criticized heavily for said ignorance. Stop defending stupidity and then maybe people will have to face the fact that they’re fucking retarded for ignoring a blatant truth for so long.

    The U.S. Military is 100% synonymous with authoritarianism and imperialism…. There is no separating the two any longer.

    P.S. This crap is just another reason for me to leave the party. Anyone within the party that is criticizing Vohra for speaking the truth, of which is 100% within the confines of the platform, need to be the ones to go.

  3. DJ

    I’ve read all 3 of his letters, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard (read) a more eloquent individual in my life. I’m 69 years old. I think he should run for POTUS.

  4. DJ

    I’ve engaged a couple of vets (Iraq and Afghanistan) on another message board and they both were leaning libertarian, but, both also stated when in country it’s no longer about fighting for country, or freedom, but about fighting for your brothers next to you. One of them said he missed the rush brought on by the fighting though he had come to learn the reasons for being there were false. He is, at heart, a good person who would benefit from seeing these letters. They are almost enough to make me rejoin that board just to link to them.

  5. dL

    P.S. This crap is just another reason for me to leave the party. Anyone within the party that is criticizing Vohra for speaking the truth, of which is 100% within the confines of the platform, need to be the ones to go.

    One can agree or disagree on the matter…the ones that need to go are the ones who are demanding the LP be a SJW safe space for the troops’ feelings. Both the Repubs and Dems already have the market cornered for PC troop talk.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Andrew McCarrick:

    “Are you anti war or not? What’s your messaging here? If you are anti-war, then you cannot logically in good conscious support anyone under any circumstances that willingly signs up for a war machine that said recruit should have done research into before they joined. Defending the U.S. Military is to defend ignorance on the part of any and all recruits. They should, without hesitation, be criticized heavily for said ignorance. Stop defending stupidity and then maybe people will have to face the fact that they’re fucking retarded for ignoring a blatant truth for so long.”

    In a word, bullshit.

    The average military recruit enlists before graduating high school — in other words, as an adolescent (usually 17 — the “Delayed Entry Program” allows recruiters to get them young) who has spent eight hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year having pro-government propaganda hammered into his or her head since shortly after infancy. He or she isn’t considered mature enough to cast a vote or buy a drink yet. In what universe is it rational to expect him or her to have figured things out to the level you seem to expect?

    Quoth dL:

    “the ones that need to go are the ones who are demanding the LP be a SJW safe space for the troops’ feelings”

    Bingo.

  7. paulie Post author

    Arvin to LNC again:

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    2:53 AM (4 hours ago)

    to lnc-business
    Hi All –

    During the last months, I’ve traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.

    We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.

    But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it’s just Republican Weak.

    In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I’m seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.

    It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it’s not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.

    In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.

    I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.

    This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we’d see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we’d be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.

    This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it’s outreach, I’d recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.

    Let’s grow the Libertarian party, not the “I want to identify with a trendy word” party.

    If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we’ll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.

    -Arvin

    Arvin Vohra

    http://www.VoteVohra.com
    VoteVohra@gmail.com
    (301) 320-3634

  8. Andy

    Arvin Vohara said: “It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it’s not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.”

    BINGO!

    The Libertarian Party experienced a lot of growth back during the Harry Browne era, as the party more than doubled in size in terms of dues paying membership, and it reached its highest peak in terms of dues paying membership at 33,000 and something (which is over 13,000 dues paying members than we have now, and note that the population of the country has increased since then, so in terms of percent of the population that are dues paying LP members, we are in much worse shape today than we were back then), and this was done with presidential tickets that ran on a far more radically libertarian platform than what we’ve had in the last three presidential elections (and I’m not sure if the last three presidential tickets even ran on a platform that could really be called libertarian, at least not without significantly watering down the definition of the term). Some people may say that Harry Browne’s vote totals were lower, and this is true, but also keep in mind that he ran under far more difficult sets of circumstances than did our presidential tickets in 2008 (note that Browne’s 1996 percent of the vote total was higher than Bob Barr’s, and even when analyzing the raw vote total numbers, keep in mind that US population increased from 1996 to 2008), 2012, and 2016. Also, Harry Browne inspired a lot of people to become hardcore libertarians, and many of these people are still active in the party and the movement today.

    Ron Paul ran on a platform that was far more boldly libertarian than the platforms of the last three Libertarian Party presidential tickets, while running in the freaking Republican primaries in 2008 and in 2012, and he did more to expand the libertarian movement than anybody.

    “Let’s grow the Libertarian party, not the ‘I want to identify with a trendy word’ party.”

    I agree.

    I’ve been out in the field gathering petition signatures over the last few months, and I have gotten lots of negative comments from members of the public about the Johnson/Weld ticket. These comments are about Johnson/Weld’s lack of libertarian principles, and/or about them appearing to be unprepared and/or uniformed, and/or about them being establishment shills (calling Hillary Clinton “a wonderful public servant”). All I can do is agree with these people, let them know that we had better candidates running for other offices, and tell them that we will nominate a better presidential ticket next time (I hope that a majority of 2020 convention delegates don’t betray me on this).

  9. Motion to remove Vohra as LNC Vice Chair

    The Region 8 (New England, NY, NJ) LNC representative has moved to remove (‘suspend’) Arvin Vohra as Vice Chair of the LNC.

    “Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
    Thanks,
    Patrick McKnight”

    For some reason I see that the LNC Judicial Committee might have work again.

    George Phillies

  10. George Phillies

    In other news of the bizarre, the alleged current top pick for FBI director was elected to the Senate as a Third Party candidate. that’s right…it’s Joe Lieberman, he who endorsed McCain over Obama after having heavy Democratic support for his third party run, who was most recently elected as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

    Lieberman’s background in administering large organizations is inapparent.

  11. paulie

    As I understand it the Judicial committee will only have work if the motion gets 2/3. Right now it is fishing for a second, and so far the only supportive arguments have come from alternates who are not eligible to cosponsor. Actually I think it needs more than one second – iirc; I forget the exact number but I think it’s 4 or 5. It does not sound to me like it has 2/3 support nor is that the impression I received from talking to a current LNC member last night. As far as I know, the Judicial Committee can’t hear an appeal of a losing vote to remove a member, correct?

  12. paulie

    And on your aside regarding Lieberman, not only has he been a third party politician with his Connecticut for Lieberman party, but Trump also sought the Reform Party nomination in 2000…. so that would be a formerly third party president picking a former third party politician as head of FBI.

  13. paulie Post author

    I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can’t grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.

    Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?

    Thanks,
    Patrick McKnight
    Region 8 Rep

    On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, “Larry Sharpe” wrote:
    Dear LNC,

    The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra’s comments is alarming to me.

    If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that “X” group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don’t like that, you shouldn’t take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never “off”. I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That’s the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.

    What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, “Oh well, that’s his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he’s a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?” I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.

    Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).

    After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak “I’m sorry that you are so sensitive” apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn’t feel like he’s done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.

    He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that’s one of our primary goals, and he’s not stopping.

    Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.

    Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.

    As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?

    “Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about.”

    They will hear that we agree with him:

    Our veterans are murders
    Our teachers are enemies
    Our candidates are liars and trickster
    It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.

    Or we can say:

    “Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that’s why we acted.”

    He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.

    This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.

    I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.

    Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.

    Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.

    I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.

    Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.


    Larry

    Larry Sharpe

    The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.

    http://TheNeoSage.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage

    https://www.facebook.com/neosage

    212-307-3545

  14. paulie Post author

    Apropos of nothing, just a reminder: The President of the United States may have provided classified information, possibly codeword classified, to the Russian foreign minister. A Congressman from his own party has broken with the pack and is openly discussing impeachment. A special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate the possibility that our President worked in concert with a foreign power to manipulate an election. This has the potential to destroy one of the two dinosaur parties. We will then have the choice of stepping up, or of living in a one-party country at the national level.

    Another reminder: On the eve of war, Great Britain removed its King for marrying the wrong sort of woman. Many people thought this was foolish.

    I urge this party to turn this political posturing towards the collapsing US government and Republican party, and to step away from the path of removing our leadership when we don’t like what they say. I think Mr. Hayes has the right idea and I look forward to working with him.

    Joshua A. Katz

  15. paulie Post author

    nc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    11:14 AM (37 minutes ago)

    to Libertarian
    I have heard from a majority of the Region 1 Chairs in writing and they are opposed (5 directly opposed, some of them strongly so, and one undecided though leaning to disapproval if it is merely “for cause” which is our language), thus, I will not co-sponsor this motion.

    If it came to be sponsored by 4 total (it requires more than a second) and came to a vote, I would re-poll the State Chairs and then depending upon that result, personally write each Region 1 delegate from 2016. I have received overwhelming support for this methodology.

    The more informal input I have received from membership (either though email, calls, text, and other messages) has been split with no clear consensus.

    -Caryn Ann

  16. dL

    Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).

    Shame RE: Larry. Thought he had potential. He is now off my list. The LP should not be a SJW safe space for troop talk. Both from an intellectual/principle position and from a strategic standpoint. I will post again the absurd cognitive dissonance of Sharpe’s Troop PC Safe Space.


    War is a racket, the US military is an organization engaged in facilitating this racket, but I apologize to any soldiers whose motives I may have impugned with my statements. I should have clarified that just like the mob, you are “men of honor.”

  17. Andy

    “dL
    ‘May 19, 2017 at 12:05
    Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).’
    Shame RE: Larry. Thought he had potential. He is now off my list. The LP should not be a SJW safe space for troop talk.”

    I still like Larry Sharpe, but I disagree with him here.

    I agree with dL that the LP should not be a safe space for politically correct speech about the military, but it is kind of funny to see this coming from dL, considering that he seems to be OK with left wing SJW crap.

    I’m not a fan of political correctness, whether it comes from the left or the right.

    I fail to see how what Arvin said was that out-of-line that he should be kicked off the LNC, or even asked to step down, or pushed into apologizing. I could see if he was celebrating American troops dying, or saying that it would be a good idea for the US government to abandon the troops who are in other countries, but he did not say anything like that. He correctly pointed out that joining the military in this day and age is a bad idea. He correctly pointed out that people who join the military get ordered to kill people in other countries for no legitimate reason. It seems to me that a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

  18. Andy

    The sad thing is that over the years that I’ve been following the LNC pretty closely, which is for over a decade now, I’m aware of things that certain LNC members have done that were a lot worse (and I don’t think that what Arvin did here even qualifies as having been a bad thing), and they got away with it, sometimes without anyone even raising an eyebrow.

    Shall we go back and rehash all of the things that SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN certain people kicked off of the LNC, but did not (mostly due to cronyism, and/or ineptness of party members not demanding removal)?

  19. paulie Post author

    I agree with dL that the LP should not be a safe space for politically correct speech about the military, but it is kind of funny to see this coming from dL, considering that he seems to be OK with left wing SJW crap.

    I can’t see where dL has been wrong about much of anything.

  20. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    1:12 PM (1 hour ago)

    to lnc-business
    As debate on this motion has begun, I will speak on it. The issue before us appears primarily one of strategy. I have not gone off platform, supported assault weapons bans, opposed the NAP, opposed business rights to serve or not serve customers, supported “revenue neutral” taxation, or supported government schooling. The issue is that I was, simply put, too rude for an effective strategy. My bluntness, in other words, is unstrategic.

    But the lessons of politics teach us otherwise. We can look at recent politics, in which the least polite, least apologetic person on earth was elected president. Or we can look at the rapidly growing groups on both the left and right that share blunt, anti-establishment views which they express unapologetically. From a strictly strategic stance, bluntness seems to work in politics today. It may turn off specific individuals who were brought in with messaging that traded a short term gain for a long term loss, but in terms of real, long term strategy that happens over an election cycle, not a weekend, I don’t see any convincing proof that bluntness is unstrategic.

    But I’d also like to speak specifically about third party politics. The assumption appears to be that third parties must be overly meek, unwilling to hurt anyone’s feelings, challenge anyone’s world view, or go anywhere near anyone’s cognitive dissonance. A third party cannot afford to, the argument goes, challenge a large scale immoral behavior done through a corrupted institution, because it lacks the political capital do do so.

    Reality disagrees. The last successful third party was also quite rude, and challenged America on an immoral behavior in which the perpetrators suffered from considerable cognitive dissonance. This immoral behavior was done by a large percentage of the population. It was the foundation for a major part of American culture, and that culture is still romanticized today, in movies like Gone With The Wind. The issue was slavery. The rude, blunt opposition to slavery gave the Republicans the presidency, and made that “third party” a dominant party. They opposed not only the act of slavery, but the perpetrators of slavery.

    Was their position divisive? Without question. The Republican position on slavery was as divisive as any position on any issue has been. It arguably lead to a civil war. But it was the moral stance, and history has shown it to be the strategic stance. Anyone met any Whig candidates lately?

    In Liberty,

    Arvin Vohra

  21. paulie Post author

    As far as the measure to remove what it looks like to me at this stage is that it will either not get enough co-sponsors to get a vote, or will get a vote and fail to get 2/3. Where it looks like it is headed is probably a LNC resolution addressing the concerns of veterans. Daniel Hayes first floated that he was looking for help to write one and a bunch of people spoke up to say that they would help him with doing so.

  22. dL

    but it is kind of funny to see this coming from dL, considering that he seems to be OK with left wing SJW crap.

    I’m a liberal and don’t subscribe to any of that nonsense…unlike, say, the HoppeBots who wade neck deep in that swamp…

  23. dL

    Where it looks like it is headed is probably a LNC resolution addressing the concerns of veterans. …
    Daniel Hayes first floated that he was looking for help to write one

    I already wrote what they are going to write…fell free to use it Dan. Save you some time.


    War is a racket, the US military is an organization engaged in facilitating this racket, but we apologize to any soldiers whose motives we may have impugned with our statements. We should have clarified that just like the mob, our soldiers are “men of honor.”

  24. dL

    But I’d also like to speak specifically about third party politics. The assumption appears to be that third parties must be overly meek, unwilling to hurt anyone’s feelings, challenge anyone’s world view, or go anywhere near anyone’s cognitive dissonance. A third party cannot afford to, the argument goes, challenge a large scale immoral behavior done through a corrupted institution, because it lacks the political capital do do so.

    Reality disagrees. The last successful third party was also quite rude, and challenged America on an immoral behavior in which the perpetrators suffered from considerable cognitive dissonance. This immoral behavior was done by a large percentage of the population. It was the foundation for a major part of American culture, and that culture is still romanticized today, in movies like Gone With The Wind. The issue was slavery. The rude, blunt opposition to slavery gave the Republicans the presidency, and made that “third party” a dominant party. They opposed not only the act of slavery, but the perpetrators of slavery.

    Was their position divisive? Without question. The Republican position on slavery was as divisive as any position on any issue has been. It arguably lead to a civil war. But it was the moral stance, and history has shown it to be the strategic stance. Anyone met any Whig candidates lately?

    In Liberty,

    Arvin Vohra

    Could not have said it better. Vohra is absolutely right on the strategy part…

  25. Just Some Random Guy

    But I’d also like to speak specifically about third party politics. The assumption appears to be that third parties must be overly meek, unwilling to hurt anyone’s feelings, challenge anyone’s world view, or go anywhere near anyone’s cognitive dissonance. A third party cannot afford to, the argument goes, challenge a large scale immoral behavior done through a corrupted institution, because it lacks the political capital do do so.

    No, the argument, or at least my argument, is that third parties–or in this case, highly ranked members of said parties–should not attempt to do things like this without any apparent gain, especially when it isn’t even an actual part of the platform.

    Reality disagrees. The last successful third party was also quite rude, and challenged America on an immoral behavior in which the perpetrators suffered from considerable cognitive dissonance. This immoral behavior was done by a large percentage of the population. It was the foundation for a major part of American culture, and that culture is still romanticized today, in movies like Gone With The Wind. The issue was slavery. The rude, blunt opposition to slavery gave the Republicans the presidency, and made that “third party” a dominant party. They opposed not only the act of slavery, but the perpetrators of slavery.

    Sorry, but reality disagrees with YOU, Vohra.
    #1: If you were anti-slavery, sure, you’d lose a lot of votes, as there were a lot of pro-slavery people. But you’d also gain a lot of votes because there were a lot of anti-slavery people. Vohra’s comments do not seem to have the same level of popular support as being anti-slavery was.
    #2: To be frank, the Republicans were never a third party. When it was founded, there was no 2-party system (and thus no third parties) because the Whig Party had fallen to such pieces with its members entering into different parties, with many going into the Republican Party. The Republican Party could not be a third party as there was no “second party” at the time of its founding. And when another party did take the place of the “second party” to the Democrats, it was them.

    The Republican Party was able to become the dominant opposition to the Democrats because the previous dominant opposition was gone and because they championed an issue that there was much agreement for. While the Democrats and Republicans do seem to have lost some popularity, we’re nowhere near what the Whig Party was, and Vohra’s comments are not particularly popular. His analogy fails. Though I should also point out that the Republican platform was much less about abolishing slavery or attacking slaveholders and more about not wanting slavery to spread to the territories, i.e. it was about keeping slavery where it was, not actually ending it.

    But it was the moral stance, and history has shown it to be the strategic stance. Anyone met any Whig candidates lately?

    It was so “strategic” to be anti-slavery that the Democrats, which took the opposite viewpoint as the Republicans, are still around today!

    The Whigs didn’t disappear because they were in favor of slavery, they disappeared because the party was so divided on that and other issues that it fell apart, a great example of how a house divided against itself cannot stand.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    I cast my second ballot vote for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 vice-presidential nomination for Larry Sharpe.

    That’s a mistake I don’t intend to make a second time.

  27. paulie Post author

    I’ve been intending to make some new threads about this topic (especially now that LNC is voting) and some other LNC matters .. maybe someone could beat me to it.

  28. dL

    The Whigs didn’t disappear because they were in favor of slavery, they disappeared because the party was so divided on that and other issues that it fell apart, a great example of how a house divided against itself cannot stand.

    The whig party came from a political realignment triggered by a genocidal “to the victors belong the spoils” maniac. it disintegrated around the next political realignment: slavery. “A House divided against itself” implies someone has to go: either the libertarians or republican-lite. I vote: republican lite. SJW “safe space” only gives appearance to conformity. The issue is not going to go away. It is only going to fester. And what’s next: can’t criticize the police b/c it might hurt Trooper Fife’s feelings?

  29. George Phillies

    I would urge readers to peruse Potter The Impending Crisis. there is also an Oxford history of the Whig Party. Throughout the period the Whig Party lasted, unionism trumped slavery as the issue, and the Democracy and the Whigs each had a northern and a southern branch. Division, with pro and antislavery stances, was a strength of each party, not a weakness. The northern-only Republican party made a show in 1856, and was in the process of collapsing when President Buchanan–not his intent–effectively rescued it thought a massively stupid series–stupid relative to his plausible objectives–of political decisions.

    Matters were deteriorating over the last four Presidential administrations, but most of the time people did not realize where things were going, because all steps were small.

    Matters really only went badly after 1858, with John Brown’s raid totally poisoning political discourse and the Democratic Party splitting in two.

  30. George Dance

    Vohra – During the last months, I’ve traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant….
    While many sign the NAP, it’s not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.”

    Andy “BINGO!

    “The Libertarian Party experienced a lot of growth back during the Harry Browne era, as the party more than doubled in size in terms of dues paying membership, and it reached its highest peak in terms of dues paying membership at 33,000 and something (which is over 13,000 dues paying members than we have now…. Also, Harry Browne inspired a lot of people to become hardcore libertarians, and many of these people are still active in the party and the movement today.”

    Really? Harry Browne ran a radical campaign, and took the LP to its highest dues-paying membership, in the process inspiring many hardcore libertarians who are still active today.

    And the legacy of that is: At least a third of those dues-paying members have disappeared, for one reason or another, while the so-called hardcore libertarians who didn’t leave are are pushing, or at least doing nothing about, a “weak, anemic messaging” that “has little do with the NAP.”

    There’s something seriously wrong with your history.

  31. George Dance

    Andrew McCormick: “This crap is just another reason for me to leave the party. Anyone within the party that is criticizing Vohra for speaking the truth, of which is 100% within the confines of the platform, need to be the ones to go.

    Now there’s a solution: Everyone who disagrees with Vohra should leave, because of him; while everyone who agrees with him should leave because of his critics.

    That should end the conflict pretty fast.

  32. Jill Pyeatt

    I would like to post Darryl Perry’s letter with the resolution being voted on, but I wanted to include Starchild’s. I saw it on Facebook a few days ago, but when I went to retrieve it, I couldn’t find it.

    I think Arvin had posted it on one of his pages. Has anyone seen it?

  33. George Dance

    GP – “The northern-only Republican party made a show in 1856, and was in the process of collapsing when President Buchanan–not his intent–effectively rescued it thought a massively stupid series–stupid relative to his plausible objectives–of political decisions.

    I’d be interested in hearing more about that. As it is, I’m skeptical of the idea that the Republicans were in danger of collapsing, and were saved only by Buchanan’s incompetence.

    For one thing there was a remarkable change in public opinion in the North after 1850. In the late 1830’s abolitionism was an unpopular fringe movement; there were anti-abolitionist riots in New York. By 1855, there were pro-abolitionist riots.

  34. paulie Post author

    And the legacy of that is: At least a third of those dues-paying members have disappeared, for one reason or another, while the so-called hardcore libertarians who didn’t leave are are pushing, or at least doing nothing about, a “weak, anemic messaging” that “has little do with the NAP.”

    There’s something seriously wrong with your history.

    A lot more than a third disappeared as the membership was down to 11,000 or so a year or two ago. A lot of new members signed up after that. However, even more of the members from 15-20 years ago have disappeared than that, as typically a large portion of members leave after a year or two or several. To the extent that we still have a few thousand members who have been involved continuously since then, many are no longer active, as they paid for life memberships or registered to vote LP or signed the pledge or any combination thereof years ago and are thus still members in some sense but have not been active in years. If you only count people that have been continuous dues paying members and remain actively involved all that time – I would guess it’s probably less than 10% of the overall current dues paying membership, and I would not be shocked if it was substantially less.

    But it’s still true that many people (relatively speaking) became hardcore libertarians thanks to Harry Browne, even if they are no longer LP members. And even if we only count those who have stayed with the party, it’s still “a lot” as a portion of the currently active membership if we compare it to those who became involved thanks to other past presidential campaigns.

  35. paulie Post author

    The whig party came from a political realignment triggered by a genocidal “to the victors belong the spoils” maniac.

    Well, given that we have another such maniac in the white house now….

  36. paulie Post author

    The latest from Arvin:

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    12:54 PM (5 hours ago)

    to lnc-business, LP-State

    Yesterday, I discussed my views on the military at the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island state convention. Here’s what I presented.

    There are some parts of the military that do something useful. Those parts should be handled by the free market, and would be improved if they were handled by the free market.

    The Coast Guard rescues people. It’s a good thing to do. However, they are also the largest part of the war on drugs, in terms of the value of the assets that they steal from businesses.

    Groups like AAA and various insurance companies are able to provide roadside assistance on the millions of miles of roads. These private sector services work reliably, and don’t squander effort and resources on things as ludicrous as the War on Drugs. Would people be able to afford to pay for a AAA of the sea? My thought is if you have the money for a boat, you probably have the money for rescue insurance.

    The Navy protects shipping lanes. Again, a good thing to do. But it does so at an astronomical expense, with firepower levels disproportionately greater than any current or expected threat of piracy or impressment. Could the several multibillion dollar shipping companies find a way to pay for that? I think so. If not, the other option would be for companies to produce things domestically. Instead of outsourcing production overseas, having the shipments sent back to the U.S., with protection paid for by our tax dollars, companies would have to do a proper risk-reward calculation. It might increase domestic production (note that the U.S. is a net importer of physical goods).

    But then there are things that no one should be doing, at all. All U.S. involvement in foreign civil wars should end. All U.S. foreign military bases should be shut down today, and the troops should be brought home. We should immediately leave NATO, and let Europe pay for its own defense. Whatever supposed “influence” we are buying at the cost of such huge military spending is not worth it, and it is not working.

    NATO is allowing Europe to become socialist, as they don’t have to be financially responsible enough to pay for their own defense. It is forcing us to become socialist, since we have to pay unacceptable taxes to fund that defense.

    Finally, the issue of culpability came up. I pointed out that good intentions don’t erase bad actions done by the individual, or by the collective that they voluntarily support, but that those bad actions similarly don’t erase the good intentions. Larry Sharpe pointed out that according to law and custom, culpability is what separates crimes like murder 1, 2, 3, manslaughter, etc., and that the intent had to be weighed very, very heavily. I found myself agreeing with Larry’s perspective on this. I also agreed with his position on not behaving as Americans did with Vietnam vets, which lead to an entirely lost generation. Instead of converting vets into a powerful force for freedom, it simply hurt them for the sake of hurting them.

    On reflection, I am forced to recognize that while opposing military worship, which is often used to manipulate people into immoral acts, is right, and fighting the military industrial complex is right, and fighting military policy that creates enemies and reduces safety is right, and provoking people to reexamine their world view is right, creating collateral damage is wrong. I have no intention of being the kind of leader who can challenge the views of others, but cannot challenge his own.

    Words can hurt brutally. That’s why I use them against the state, and the worship of the state. But they should be used carefully for that same reason. During the last week, I failed to be careful enough with those words. While they helped some people, they also hurt a lot of people. To those who were hurt by my words, I apologize to you, specifically, for both what I said, and for the impact it had.

    I know it will be a long time before many of you who have been involved in the military will be able to trust me again, if ever. I’ll do my best to earn your trust the only way I know how to earn trust. I’ll speak to you honestly. I’ll fight for your freedoms with every weapon I have. My aim with a weapon is frankly laughable, but my words can do some damage.

    Whether you end up trusting me again or not, I will be fighting with you, against the state, for our shared goal of liberty.

    In Liberty,
    Arvin Vohra


    Arvin Vohra

    http://www.VoteVohra.com
    VoteVohra@gmail.com
    (301) 320-3634

  37. dL

    Darryl W. Perry’s open letter:

    Open Letter to the LNC:
    I’m writing to you as a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, as one of the candidates for the 2016 LP Presidential nomination, and as a Conscientious Objector, and not in my official capacity as Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.
    I ask that you either vote NO on the “Libertarian National Committee Resolution on Military Members in the Libertarian Party” or consider changing your vote from YES to NO.
    There are already at least 3 political parties (GOP, Dems & Constitution Party), possibly more, that put military members on pedestals and pander for their votes.
    I can’t tell you how often I hear people say “men and women have died or served time to make this great country free” or some other variation thereof. This is the trump card of the anti-Anti-War crowd, along with “freedom isn’t free” – which usually implies that people must die (the blood sacrifice) in order for you to have your freedom. She and others seem to believe that peace and freedom can only be achieved through bloodshed. Though even with much blood being shed the Congress has been taking away freedoms left and right for the past 100 years.
    I’m really disappointed that some members of the LNC want to jump aboard the “Military is wonderful, and can do no wrong” train. With Memorial Day around the corner, we should be spreading the message of peace, and encouraging people to not fall for the lies of military recruiters!
    Again, I respectfully ask you to vote NO on the Resolution on Military Members in the Libertarian Party, and to likewise vote against on the motion to remove Arvin Vohra as Vice Chair, unless there are specific bylaws violations that can be cited.
    In Liberty,
    Darryl W. Perry

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *