MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Libertarian Party Vice Chair Jokes About Shooting Up a School Board; Party's National Committee Declines to Suspend Him

Party officials split on how to deal with a member's radical rhetoric.

Arvin Vohra, vice chair of the Libertarian Party's National Committee (LNC), prides himself on being rhetorically uncompromising in staking out the most radical and potentially outrageous outer frontiers of libertarian thought. His past comments on the age of consent (he says it isn't the government's business) and the proper moral attitude toward members of the U.S. military (he says they're hired killers) caused the party's New York gubernatorial candidate Larry Sharpe (singled out by Politico as a "rarity...a serious Libertarian candidate") to quit his position on the National Committee after it failed to suspend Vohra back in February.

Arvin Vohra FacebookArvin Vohra Facebook

Since then, the rhetorical outrages have continued. In a post last month on the social network site MeWe, Vohra wrote: "Bad Idea: School Shootings. Good Idea: School Board Shootings."

Vohra insists that was not a serious threat but a joke in "poor taste." But he also has tried to use it as a teaching moment over the question of when violent resistance might be justified.

Vohra tries to connect the dots between the fact that the Libertarian Party says "taxation is an immoral violation of your sacred rights" and the fact that the Libertarian Party has "routinely argued that guns are not for hunting, they are for opposing government overreach."

So? Well, as he wrote on Facebook, "I've routinely argued against any violence against the state, since I consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore gun supporters who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level of tyranny that would be great enough to morally justify using violence in self defense?" He has "no plans to ever advocate violence against the state," but only for pragmatic reasons. "I consider it unnecessary," not wrong. "I believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that violence is not needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to work." He absolutely believes in the right to use violence to defend yourself against state actions.

Many LNC members found the seeming threat of school board shootings to violate a pledge party members take to "certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." Vohra seems to doubt that striking at agents of the state with violence is initiating such violence, but even he wrote off the school board shooting line as a joke.

At the end of March, some LNC members publicly asked Vohra to resign, which he opted not to do. Another motion to suspend Vohra was introduced on April 3, and last night it failed. The vote was 11–6 in favor of suspending him, but the party's rules require a two-thirds vote of the total body for suspension, so it fell a vote short.

The motion singled Vohra out for "sustained and repeated unacceptable conduct that brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into disrepute, including making and defending a statement advocating lethal violence against state employees who are not directly threatening imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation of our membership pledge. These actions further endanger the survival of our movement and the security of all of our members without their consent."

As per the announcement from LNC Secretary Alicia Mattson, the "ayes" to get rid of Vohra were Whitney Bilyeu, Sam Goldstein, Tim Hagan, Caryn Ann Harlos, Daniel Hayes, Jeffrey Hewitt, Joshua Katz, Alicia Mattson, Justin O'Donnell, William Redpath, and Elizabeth Van Horn. The "nays" were David Demarest, Jim Lark, Ed Marsh, Nicholas Sarwark, Starchild, and Vohra himself.

Starchild says that Vohra's disavowal of any serious threat in the "joke" made him vote against suspension. O'Donnell stresses that he shares Vohra's anarchism but voted to suspend because Vohra "has displayed a persistent and consistent ignorance as to the impact of his statements....I do fundamentally and philosophically agree with much of what Mr Vohra says in his posts, but I also understand the need to frame such arguments in a manner that reaches people that are not already members of the party."

Vohra posted on Facebook yesterday, before the voting concluded, that "I made a mistake when I posted something stupid on mewe.com" and is alarmed that people "may have misconstrued my words to encourage actual violence, which is the last thing I want. I joined the Libertarian movement because I oppose violence. I oppose state violence, personal violence, all violence. I oppose wars and drug wars. I oppose private and public actions done under threats of violence, ranging from burglary to taxation." Vohra went on to suggest anyone who does not share his anarchist opposition to the state is someone who does in fact believe in relying on violence.

Vohra belongs to a longstanding tradition in Libertarian Party politics, known in the old days as the "Libertarian Macho Flash." The idea was well-characterized in a 2001 essay by old party hand Thomas Sipos:

[T]he macho flash is an in-your-face flaunting of the most extreme libertarian hypotheticals. No soft-peddling or sugar cube to make the medicine go down. Should a soccer mom ask about drug policy in a hypothetical libertarian society, the non-flasher will discuss medical marijuana, the failure of Prohibition, and the benefits of treatment over prisons. The macho flasher will defend the right to erect crack cocaine vending machines in daycare centers.

The admonition against macho flashing comes from what may be termed the LP's Activist faction. Activists are primarily concerned with electoral victory. They advocate marketing the more popular LP positions, and downplaying the "scary" ones. They favor a prioritization (if not compromise) of issues, based on voter appeal.

Andy Craig, a party activist and occasional candidate from Wisconsin, helped launch the party's Pragmatist Caucus. He summed up the widespread attitude that the LNC's reaction to Vohra's provocations has been insufficiently serious in a Facebook post this morning:

This is a decision that sends a message: that the national committee (or at least slightly over one-third of it) doesn't take the idea of the L.P. as an actual political party, getting real public scrutiny, seriously....That this isn't an organization that has any real intention of conducting itself in a manner that will engender the trust of voters. That the national committee is unwilling to protect the party—including the state parties and their base of volunteers and supporters and potential candidates—from harm being inflicted by one of their own. Harm that he has been able to inflict solely because the national committee refused to deprive him of the title that renders his actions so harmful.

LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark voted against booting Vohra, and had he gone the other way Vohra would indeed be gone. But that vote does not mean he agrees with Vohra's general positions, nor that he thinks Vohra's rhetoric is good for the party.

Rather, Sarwark stood on the principle that, since Vohra was elected by the body of the members, the decision to get him out of his job should be left up to that body when it votes for the next vice chair at the party's convention in New Orleans this summer. As Sarwark summed up his position in a note to the rest of the LNC, reproduced on his Facebook page:

Many of the people who have contacted me about this vote have told me that if the Vice Chair worked for them, he would have been fired. If he worked for me, he would have been fired as well. But the Vice Chair is not my subordinate. He, along with every other officer and at-large member of the LNC, serves at the pleasure of the delegates at convention. In just over two months, those delegates at convention will get to vote for all of the officers of the LNC, including the Vice Chair.

Sarwark also explicitly stated that Vohra will not have Sarwark's vote at that convention.

Photo Credit: Arvin Vohra Facebook

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Why the LP can't ever get more than 4% despite holding popular positions on many issues, the mystery continues.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Racism. What else?

  • DJK||

    Have other LP candidates advocated violence in such a manner? I'm not aware of any.

  • John||

    This is just another example of the nuts who inhabit the LP. Not all of them are like this nut, but he is typical of the kind of nut.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Translation: as a GOP-voting sockpuppet assigned to confuse libertarians, this particular nut enhances my 5th column credibility, and is a handy tarbrush for characterizing the lot.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Mystery? Libertarians reject roughly half of the conservative platform and roughly half of the liberal platform. Very few people are genuine, consistent libertarians. Relatively few self-described libertarians are libertarians -- most of them are defensive, oft-authoritarian right-wingers prancing around in unconvincing libertarian drag.

  • Just Say'n||

    It should be pretty simple: if you reflexively support government involvement then check your work, because you're most likely wrong.

    If people stuck to that (including some writers here) I don't understand what the problem could be.

  • Michael Hihn||

    if you reflexively support government involvement then check your work, because you're most likely wrong.

    You just proved him right, with your authoritarian blather. In your dick-tatership, there's no need to convince a majority of voter, because ... bellowing theories outweighs will of the people, which is WHY even Ayn Rand ridiculed your wacky arrogance that 5% of the citizens are "entitled" to rule the 95%.

    All you conservatards are just too dense to understand individual liberty and a free society.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The 1955 Solomon Asch experiment showed how weak-minded fools are easily influenced by organized fakery. The Prohibition Party with 1.4% of the vote changed the Constitution into an instrument of armed coercion that murdered thousands and wrecked the economy to make beer a felony for 14 years! So spoiler votes cast by christianofascists and communists work. All Michael has to realize in that LP spoiler votes are working just as well, perhaps even a damned sight betther! Research Fisher-Pry sigmoid curve substitution models and the history of small party influence in making things like the Communist Manifesto Income Tax Amendment the Law of the Land.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If you confused he Prohibition PARTY with the support for prohibition ... then that is why you confuse the Libertarian PARTY's 4% of the vote ... with over 60% support for libertarian VALUES

    Sorry, but the Cato survey confirms your thuggish denials.

    Communist Manifesto Income Tax Amendment

    THAT is why YOU are rejected by 91% of libertarians ... also per Cato.
    TOTAL authoritarian. Too extreme for even Ayn Rand!

  • Devastator||

    Not everyone adheres to the strictest sense of libertarianism and see a spectrum and look for areas that we do share with other parties. Also some of us are pragmatists and don't live in La La land thinking that suddenly everyone is going to agree with the whole platform so we work and vote for piecemeal progress. It really is more of a philosophy than a party.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ALL of the LP Platform sucks -- and I served on the National Platform Committee for 3 or 4 conventions.
    It's the same anti-gummint gooberism that has destroyed the entire movement. The TOTAL lack of ANY policy solutions, and the notion that elections are for ptomoting "libertarian ideas." (slogans and soundbites. Libertopia is for ONLY libertarians, thus the OPPOSITE of a free society, with no plan and no desire to EVER get elected and govern, which the Rothbardian Goobers say is "conspiring with statists." Because, of course, a free society will spring from the ground, spontaneously, like weeds.

    The "movement" is now as totally useless as the progtards and contards, liberttytards.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    For once I agree with you, Padre.

    You hit the nail on the head: half of what we support will totally alienate those on the left, while the other half will alienate those on the right. That's why I always make it about authoritarianism vs non-authoritianism.

    Some people, including here unfortunately, are just not comfortable with real, across-the-board non-authoritarianism.

    All that aside, however, there is a time and place for everything. This Vohra guy doesn't get that people who don't like us will eagerly jump on a deliberately controversial and inflammatory starement like his and use it to smear the whole group. He isn't helping his own cause, even if what he says, in principle, may not be wrong.

    I, for one, figure all drugs should be legalized and all sex workers, as long as they are consenting adults, should be left alone. But do I try to bring that up at a job interview, or to the other parents at a kid's birthday party? Not unless directly asked, no. I have a feeling no one asked this guy for his opinion, joking or otherwise, about local school boards.

  • MarkLastname||

    So you and Mike Hihn are indeed the same person.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Do you mean me? No way I'm Hihn!

    I think he's pretty ridiculous, at least when he rants in all caps.

    Plus I think he's several decades older than I am.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I highly doubt the current 'Hihn' is really Michael Hihn. The real Hihn has never come off as a progressive shill.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Asshole Fakabrain STILL refuses to accept that libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 50 years.

    The first time he WHINED that I'm a progressive, I JAMMED it up his ass, with PROOF of my published writing and actually campaign positions ... which is WHEN he said I cannot be who I am ... because he'd never be so fucking stoooopid! (lol)

    What has HE ever done? Not a fucking thing but strut around online, as a bellowing blowhard.

    (This posted in self-defense of repeated aggression by a thuggish stalking cyber-bully)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Hear hear!

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing) Fakaname whines about fake names.
    Goober cheers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I think he's pretty ridiculous, at least when he rants in all caps.

    ONLY FOR ]SELF-DEFENSE ... AND/OR RIDICULE (like this).

    A LOSER IS ONE WHO --- LOSING ON THE ISSUE ... WHINES ABOUT PUNCTUATION!!
    (SMIRK) (That was ridicule for any other low-information readers)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Mark Lastname is a bat-shit crazy conspiracy nut.

  • jelabarre||

    most of them are defensive, oft-authoritarian right-wingers prancing around in unconvincing libertarian drag.

    What would convincing libertarian drag be? Cosplaying Ayn Rand?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Those assholes are TOTALLY clueless on Ayn Rand. -- who was Jeffersonian, that will of the people is the primary metric for a moral government. Thus, voluntary taxation would be the very last reform to be attempted, AFTER government was reduced to it's bare essentials. But anti-gummint goobers do it backwards, because they're fucking clueless on HOW to do that. "Just git gummint out!" is for losers and retards (authoritarians)..

  • H-daddy||

    Rev. Kirkland, Maybe you know 2 "Libertarians" and they fit the description you have artfully constructed for us. But the truth is that most libertarians, party members and the philosophically aligned, are just ordinary folks with an appreciation for liberty. They are a diverse bunch, granted, but isn't it the appreciation of our natural liberties that make one a libertarian. Highly consistent, I say!

  • Michael Hihn||

    You confuse libertarians with conservatards.

    Maybe you know 2 "Libertarians" and they fit the description you have artfully constructed for us.

    The DEFINITION has been fiscally conservative and socially liberal ... for 49 years, sonny boy.
    Anything less seeks to deploy gummint force, but denies it as the bullshitters and authoritarians they are.

    Anything else?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Taxation being theft is not a popular position. Being too extreme for even Ayn Rand doesn't help.
    Neither does have ZERO credible policy solutions for ANYTHING.

    Most of what government provides is what people wanted .... have always wanted .... and always willing ti pay for, in the private market, When today's libertarian elites have NO way of doing ANYTHING better, then progressives will continue kicking our ass in the court of public opinion, as they have for at least a quarter century now.

  • What Smells Like Pee?||

    He can say it. And be an asshole not worth having around.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    So edgy!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I think we have a new type of libertarian: libertarian of ill repute.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That would imply that there are libertarians in good repute.

  • Drake||

    He's what I like to call a 'chaotic evil' libertarian.

  • Agammamon||

    'Stupid evil'

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    singled out by Politico as a "rarity...a serious Libertarian candidate")

    So, I'm going to consider that faint praise from Politico.

  • shawn_dude||

    When the norm appears to be silliness like "second amendment solutions" to school boards, pointing out someone as "a serious Libertarian candidate" makes sense.

  • DJK||

    Are you saying that the majority of libertarians advocate shooting up school boards? Do you have any proof to offer for this statement?

  • DJK||

    Never mind. Reading comprehension!

  • Just Say'n||

    You're doing a real bang-up job as national chair, BUCS

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No BUCS, no Buck Rogers!

  • John||

    In more bad news for Libertarians, even Canadians are smart enough not to want robot cars. Canadians.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c.....something/

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Huh, if I read that chart correctly, it's Germans who are the least ready for self-driving cars.

    Or better said, "you know who else doesn't like self-driving cars?"

  • John||

    The Germans are the best drivers in the world and Germany by far the most enjoyable place to drive. So, it makes sense they would find these evil contraptions verboten.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That may be the reason. I do suspect the Germans do like their cars. Canadians... never struck me as a car oriented country. For instance, name one Canadian Car.

    If the Canadians could have invented the car, it would have been the Prius-- or maybe the Honda Insight.

  • John||

    IN Toronto or Montreal maybe. But the Canadians out west are more like Americans.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm not saying they don't DRIVE cars, I merely say they're not a car-oriented culture. The car is a mundane item designed to get your average Canadian from one Tim Horton's to the other.

  • Drake||

    And the tops of their heads don't come off when they talk.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Flapping headed, beady eyed, weasels with maple syrup for blood.

  • Longtobefree||

    First off, even a gasoline powered car requires a battery to start, and Canada is too cold too often for that technology.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They should use the chevy volt method then. Attach a gas engine to the battery to keep it charged... wait, there's something wrong with this chain isn't there?

  • JFree||

    Canadians would have invented an offroad vehicle that could press wild flowers - https://youtu.be/QgaRd4d8hOY

  • KBeckman||

    If the Canadians could have invented the car it would have been a Zamboni.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Oooh........beauty, eh?

  • Johnimo||

    Now THAT is a funny comment. Thanks for the humor.

  • What Smells Like Pee?||

    Bricklin.

    I guess I win.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Could it be that Canadians are hip to the concerns we've stated for so long — that less-than-ideal infrastructure and bad weather poses a greater threat to the proliferation of autonomous driving than companies and tech websites suggest? Are Canadians more likely to recognize the hurdles standing in the way of this technology?

    Just think of a snowy commute home to your house in rural Anytown, Canada. (North Dakota or Minnesota work, too.) The lane markers are blanketed and completely obscured by many inches of snow. Forward facing cameras and and proximity sensors have accumulated a nice crust of dirty slush or, if it's colder, pure ice. Yes, that AV you're riding in will really hold that lane. Is that your exit up ahead, or a farmer's field? Looks the same from here.

    There's workarounds to every problem, but, as a former Managing Editor postulated, it's infrastructure that's key to making AVs work. The vehicles themselves are secondary.

    If it's infrastructure that will make the cars work, we're in bigger trouble than we thought.

  • John||

    Robocars will turn into another multi billion dollar mass transit theft program. The only difference will be Ron Bailey and a lot of other people who normally would know better will be cheering it on. AVs are for Libertarians what trains are for Progs.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    We hear your fear, John. It's OK Christine was just a movie.

  • Agammamon||

    So, how does a human driver manage? I mean, what's a windshield? What are wipers? What's a defroster? If its bad enough that people can't drive, why would you expect the autonomous car to be able to? Infrastructure is not key - that's V2I and that was the assumed standard in the '90's but nobody (except the government) believes that it would have ever been workable or desirable - the need to lock in a vehicle and infrastructure standard and then spend trillions updating roads? Government loved it because it meant they would be able to control and track your car.

    Nowadays its V2V - complete autonomy with the vehicles able to directly communicate with each other. A more capable version of what we do *right now* with a human driver, brake lights and turn signals (if anyone used them).

    A self-driving car can at least back itself up with GPS/cell phone tower triangulation - which is good enough for centimeter accuracy.

    It can respond to changes in traction faster and on a per-wheel basis.

    These problems are serious but they're not insurmountable. A self-driving car doesn't have to be able to drive in conditions a human can't drive in either in order to be useful.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Alright, which one of you maniacs is Arvin Vohra?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Probably one of the original group that left during Exodus 1.0 in '08. You're too young to remember that one.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What's the backstory there.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My guess is it's related to Obama given the year.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yaaarrrp.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    So it was another yokexit?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No, it was more of a cosmo. There have been some pretty left-leaning TReasonoids.

    Playing defense sucks, so ever time there's a party-switch, there's an exodus.

  • ||

    So it was another yokexit?

    Quite the opposite - it was the crowd that liked to snark on W who got displaced by an influx of anti-Dems.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Who's the oldest commentator still around?

    Hihn?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Nah, Hihn's a jonny come-lately in relative terms. Hugh Akston might be... I can't remember if he/she/it was here when I got here.

    R.C. Dean would have been one of the older ones.

    Honestly, it's getting to the place where I may be one of the old(est) ones around, mainly because I'm the type of person that doesn't really evolve in any meaningful way.

  • John||

    I hate to admit it, but I am likely the oldest one or close to. I think maybe Pro Liberate was here when I started and maybe RC Dean, but that is it and I wouldn't trust my memory on that. So, it might be me.

  • Agammamon||

    I might have you beat - I started in 1998.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I think Pro Libertate, or whatever his name is, has the most senior status.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I think Pro Libertate, or whatever his name is, has the most senior status.

    Yes, and unfortunately, there are some people who've changed their handles so I lost track. I'm pretty sure Pro L was here when I got here.

  • John||

    Palin's buttplug was here for a very long time. He was shrike until the retard forgot his password. I predate him but not by that much. And Pro Liberate may have come after me.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Palin's buttplug was here for a very long time. He was shrike until the retard forgot his password. I predate him but not by that much. And Pro Liberate may have come after me.

    I'm not gonna start searching, cause I'm not even sure how'd I'd do it accurately, I wanna say I was here right around or just before 2000.

  • John||

    That is about when I showed up Paul. It was pre 9-11. I know that.

  • ||

    I wanna say I was here right around or just before 2000.

    Well, you have deeper roots than I - I think I discovered Reason around 2003, and didn't start commenting until probably 2005 or so, but I left in protest for several years after registration, so those years don't count.

  • John||

    The scourge of registration and threaded comments. The dark days of the White Indian spam attacks. Good times.

  • ||

    Ah, White Indian.

    You see, you just don't get that kind of totally-unhinged when people have to register.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well, you have deeper roots than I - I think I discovered Reason around 2003, and didn't start commenting until probably 2005 or so, but I left in protest for several years after registration, so those years don't count.

    Just do like the rest of us, subscribe so you can cancel in protest.

  • ||

    Yes, and unfortunately, there are some people who've changed their handles so I lost track.

    That's the thing. Prior to registration, I changed my handle pretty much every time I entered a new conversation. The main reason I held onto "Square" was that I forgot my password and I'm too lazy to reset it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hihn is 76. And what kind of asshole ridicules AGE ... when they get their ass WHUPPED on the issues.

    An authoritarian.

    Because Left - Right = Zero
    Both now being obsolete, less than 40% COMBINED.
    And both suffering a mental affliction known as severe denial

  • What Smells Like Pee?||

    "Who's the oldest commentator still around?"

    I am. and it isn't close.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That's a fascinating theory. So the Glibs left because they were tired of defending Trump against the incessant attacks? That seems hilariously true.

    I would think a libertarian would be unaffected by which party is in power. I certainly don't have any emotional attachment to it and I certainly never play defense for those in power.

  • Just Say'n||

    "That's a fascinating theory. So the Glibs left because they were tired of defending Trump against the incessant attacks? That seems hilariously true."

    I would disagree with that framing and I think most of them would too

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I also would disagree with that framing, as I suspect the people in the 08 exodus would probably disagree with it. But libertarians tend to come in a couple of flavors-- and your hate tends to be directed towards one party with greater intensity.

    For instance, I admit I loathe the Democrats, but in my case I think it's because I get more of a sense of betrayal with them. Whereas with Republicans, I expect a certain amount of stupidity and mendaciousness.

    We all have our blinders.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Diane may have confirmed my own observation, as a libertarian from the very beginning, the fall of 1960, having helped over a hundred into the party and movement, including a stint as the first (only?) Director of a State LP (WA).

    Despite the screeching of right-wing goobers ... libertarians come in from both the left and the right ... most retain their PASSION for EITHER fiscal or social issues ... but defend the other half as the price one pays for living in a free society ... and THAT is the message we FAIL to convey to the 60%+ of Americans who self-describe with libertarian values, but 91% of them REJECT the movement (which rejects THEM)

    Left and right are BOTH authoritarian ... because they seek to impose EVERYTHING their way, wiith government force.

  • ||

    I would disagree with that framing and I think most of them would too

    I think it's true of some, but not most.

    I would characterize the 2008 exodus as "because of the influx of commenters who were more right-wing than libertarian" and the 2017 exodus as "because Reason itself stopped being 'above the fray' and started indulging in anti-Trumpian hysteria," in addition to ongoing annoyance at persistent left-wing trolls like Tony and Buttplug.

    Both of these things had some truth behind them, but in both cases there was some (IMHO) serious over-reaction going on.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I get the feeling the major driving issue with the glibs was two fold.

    The Trump hysteria was one, but probably would not have caused a creation of a new website and exodus if not for another more personal issue. Which was one of the guy's (Sloopy?) family members had been assaulted by cops at an event of some sort. He was repeatedly requesting Reason because it was precisely in their wheelhouse police brutality.

    The repeated rebuking towards someone who had previously felt quite loyal to the site, led to some bad blood eventually leading to the creation of the mailing list, and then new website.

    So, I was really new when this was happening, but I actually seem to recall this happened. Someone call me fag if I'm wrong.

  • John||

    BUCs. I am told that Swiss Servator runs the site. A lot of people left for the reasons you give, but I think Swiss Servator started it for other reasons.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Someone call me fag if I'm wrong.

    We'll call you 'fag' even if you're right. You're definitely new here.

  • John||

    This is why Postrel hates us.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Postrel was the last REAL: editor.
    She understood ... like Rand ... that "first, the culture must change" ... which is now several decades ahead of the goober-dominated movement.

  • ||

    Which was one of the guy's (Sloopy?) family members had been assaulted by cops at an event of some sort.

    It was Sloopy, yes, but IIRC the website had already been in the works for a while when that happened.

    RC Dean seems like the one who really started the official exodus when he spent a couple of days here announcing he was leaving, looking for another place, and likely wouldn't be back, and the Sloopy thing seemed to happen about the same time and created a sort of critical mass. Since there was a particular crowd who were more-than-usually attached to one another, they all left en masse.

  • Just Say'n||

    I've commented on Glibs quite a bit and I'd say that there is a deeper divide within libertarian circles between so called 'yokels' and 'cosmos' (those groups aren't really unified in belief either, though) than there has been in the past. And I think the deliberate attempt by the Johnson campaign to muddle the libertarian message was real off putting to a lot of people (myself included).

    I've said this before, but I really think that Trump broke every major political ideology in this country except for the Greens and LeRouche types. Conservatives, libertarians, progressives, and liberals are all at each other's throats.

  • John||

    It is funny that the Glibs think of themselves as the yokals. Yet, I am by far the most notorious yokal and they banned me after about a week. I find the fact that they banned me to be funnier every time I think about it. I find the fact that they banned anyone to be more than a bit ironic.

  • ||

    It is funny that the Glibs think of themselves as the yokals.

    Oh, I don't think they think of themselves as yokels - I think they find it quite funny that they are thought of as yokels.

  • John||

    That is what I mean Square. They see themselves as the Yokul side of things as opposed to the Cosmotarian side of things. I am pretty sure I am the one who first started attacking the staff for being Cosmotarians. I was kicked out of my own movement.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That whole website comes off as a circle jerk for a group of exclusive insiders to lord it over anyone else. Which is what I think they were going for.

  • John||

    That is what I mean Square. They see themselves as the Yokul side of things as opposed to the Cosmotarian side of things. I am pretty sure I am the one who first started attacking the staff for being Cosmotarians. I was kicked out of my own movement.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I know I don't consider myself particularly cosmopolitan. I'm almost certainly considered liberal by many here, but I have such a deep abiding disdain of being in cities that I don't think I can fairly be called cosmopolitan.

    That being said, I don't actually mind people who like cities or anything.

  • John||

    That is okay BUCS, I am a total cosmopolitan in many ways. I am a bit of a foodie, love my cocktails, go to the opera, love museums, love to travel. I am anything but a yokul. But I can't stand people who put on airs about things.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Huh, all that is true for me as well.

    I admit I don't get the whole "cosmotarian" thing. I thought it was about immigration.

    If it's about being urban/urbane, I guess I am one...though nothing alienated me more quickly than a snob. I'd choose a hick over a snob any day if it comes down to that.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am the same way. I hate cities and love nature and some of my favorite past times are hunting, fishing, backpacking, and so on. Yet I am socially quite liberal, which often puts me at odds with people that usually enjoy those types of things.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Yet, I am by far the most notorious yokal and they banned me after about a week."

    I was on there a lot when they banned you. Everyone agreed that they generally enjoy your points, but (and I think you would admit this too) you get a little too heated sometimes in discussions. I'm guilty of that too, for sure.

  • John||

    I am the worst about that. I can irritate anyone if I set my mind to it, which I often do. Hell, I probably would have banned me too. I am not mad about it. I just think its funny.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think it's interesting to see the three returners I know of.

    I believe John, Just Say'n, and Eddie were all people who left here, but then left Glib for various reasons. Perhaps there are others, I believe Gilmore posts at both.

    I know that I did go over and lurk for awhile, but there's a certain mood there that kind of put me off. I wish them well, but I did not care for the atmosphere.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    There are a few others that pop in from time to time, but not on a regular basis. I am really happy Eddie came back. I like that guy. I like all three of those guys.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, the more the merrier here. I have my favorites, but I like basically everyone here.

    Sometimes not PB, but otherwise my only strongly disliked user is that rando named Reality.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    And I think the deliberate attempt by the Johnson campaign to muddle the libertarian message was real off putting to a lot of people (myself included).

    As Robert Rubin (a Gary Johnson supporter) said, "The man put me against weed, because he couldn't remember anything!"

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    It is true that the divide is much greater than before. A lot of it has to do with Ron Paul and the influx of right-wingers into the movement as a result of his candidacy. These right-wingers never fully embraced the libertarian philosophy and were primarily attracted to it as an anti-federal government stance, rather than the individualism that is at the core of libertarian philosophy.

  • John||

    It is deeper than right wingers just liking to bash the feds, though there is some of that. It is also a bunch of left wingers who buy into leftist culture and transform every leftist culture war position into a Libertarian one and tolerate no dissent. There is a libertarian case to be made against gay marriage. There is a hell of a libertarian case to be made against transgenderism and abortion. Not that there aren't arguments for the other side, there are. It is just that whenever it involves the leftist culture war hot button of the day, suddenly supporting it is the "libertarian position" to the exclusion of all others. That causes a lot of division as well.

  • John||

    It is true but it seems to be a one time occurrence. Joe from Lowell, Jennifer, Gaius Marius, and a few others whose names escape me were all left-leaning liberals who inhabited this board and ran away the moment Obama took power or shortly thereafter. What surprised me was how none of them came back after Trump won.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    And we shouldn't remember, there have been a couple of Reasonoids who've died. JsubD is one I remember. Interestingly, he was part of the '08 exodus that went to that other site that I can't even 'member.

    I know there was another regular way back who was in an accident that killed his daughter. I always felt really bad about that one.

  • John||

    JsubD is dead? That is horrible. The retired navy guy also dies. I can't remember for the life of me what his handle was. But that happened before 08. Or was JsubD, the navy guy?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Jsub was the navy guy.

  • ||

    And don't forget Almanian : (

  • John||

    What happened to Fluffy? He was one of the smartest people to ever comment on here. He had his blind spots. He was batshit insane about the Trayvon Martin deal, convinced that because Zimmerman followed Martin, Martin had a right to attack him. But he made some arguments that actually changed my opinion on some things or if I agreed with them were better arguments for the position than I had ever thought of. His no longer coming here was a real loss.

  • John||

    When did Almanian die? That is a shame. I always liked him.

  • ||

    When did Almanian die?

    It was a year ago or more, now. Cancer.

  • John||

    Very sorry to hear that.

  • ||

    Gaius Marius

    Now THAT's a blast from the past. I used to read his blog when he had one. That man had an incredible background in philosophy. Also some very good economic chops. It was always fun to cross swords with him.

  • ||

    I always enjoyed sparring with Joe. He wasn't quite as far of the deep end as Tony. Just a dyed in the wool Masshole liberal.

  • John||

    Joe was a dishonest hack. but he was leaps and bounds above Tony. No one kicked Joe around more than I did, but I have to admit, he would be a hell of an improvement over Tony and Shreek.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No one kicked Joe around more than I did, but I have to admit, he would be a hell of an improvement over Tony and Shreek.

    I kicked him around a fair bit on healthcare.

  • John||

    The first time anyone ever said "why don't you two clowns just get married already" was said about me and Joe. My God did I waste a lot of time going at it with him. And to be honest, there was a time when I kind of liked him. But towards the end, he turned into a total dick.

    And we are forgetting the greatest reason troll of all, Tulpa. Who actually was a real person. He was some failed math professor. He is probably dead by now too.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Did he ever indicate he was from Arizona? Because I knew worked with a fake failed math professor, who had an obsession with Tulpas.

    Did he ever talk about Fermat's Last Theorem?

  • John||

    The original Tulpa was from the Northeast somewhere BUCS.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Dang.

  • John||

    I was a nutty leftist but Gaius was a smart and interesting guy. He was one of the few examples of an actual smart lefty commentator. It is a shame he stopped coming around.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I was a nutty leftist

    Finally, you admit it.

  • John||

    Freudian slips are real BUCS.

  • ||

    Took me a bit to find it...fun to walk down memory lane...Gaius's old blog. Last entry 2012.

  • ||

    Jennifer is apparently still blogging.

  • John||

    Jennifer is a great example of crazy sexy. She used to be a stripper. And still isn't bad looking. But she is a bit out there.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Is SugarFree still alive? He stopped blogging about a year ago. Does he still post at the Glibs?

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah SugarFree is one of the people that runs the site. Posts funny articles

  • Inigo Montoya||

    So much this.

    I don't see the point of defending someone who, at best, has very little in common with libertarians.

    What's more, experience suggests that even when they mouth the right words, their actions go the opposite way.

    Case in point: I hated Bush's infringements on liberty and privacy, and initially liked Onama's criticism of that. But what did Obama do once elected?

    NONE of these bozos are worth defending.

  • Agammamon||

    No, the Glibs left because one of their MiL's was attacked by cops while trying to give aid and Reason didn't want to cover the story.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark voted against booting Vohra, and had he gone the other way Vohra would indeed be gone.

    Goddammit, BUCS.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Real talk. He's the only vaguely ethnic person in the whole party. We need him.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    RIP, Russell Means.

  • Just Say'n||

    Ron Paul killed him (at the polls)

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Vohra or Vhora (Punjabi: ਵੋਹਰਾ, Hindi: वोहरा, व्होरा) is a surname that can be found among Hindus and Sikhs, as well as Sunni Muslims. Bohra and Vahora, are other variants of this surname. The origin of the name is unclear, but popular etymology connects it with the Sanskrit word "vyuha", which means "battle array."

    He is not gonna go down without a battle, let me tell ya.

  • Just Say'n||

    Larry Sharpe?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "I do fundamentally and philosophically agree with much of what Mr Vohra says in his posts, but I also understand the need to frame such arguments in a manner that reaches people that are not already members of the party"

    Look at Captain Nuance over here. Who invited this joker to the party?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Don't dilute the message, bro!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Let's be honest. Does anyone like their school board?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I just hate school in general. A while back I wrote this song about how much I hate it

  • BestUsedCarSales||

  • DajjaI||

    At the risk of getting banned again by Reason - I condemn this guy's remarks. Not cool.

  • JFree||

    Maybe they should rewrite the LP rules so that any active candidate for elected office be required to resign any board seats.

    I suspect that's one reason WHY this guy is making these comments - to get publicity for his Senate candidacy and thus do his 'teaching moment' rationale. Which is fine for a candidate - but if he's a candidate, he's also not focusing on his national committee job. So for the LP, this sort of stuff is the worst of all possible worlds.

  • shawn_dude||

    I'd like to think the worst of all possible worlds is the LP being associated with people who advocate for shooting school board members. Especially given the rash of school shootings and sniper shootings recently.

  • JFree||

    Yeah - but no party can stop candidates/members from spouting nonsense or doing the shock value thing. My change would eliminate the inherent conflict where someone utters that stuff potentially for their own sole benefit which might harm other candidates in other places.

  • Don't look at me.||

    They would have kicked him out if was trying to buy sex on the reason comments section.

  • Kivlor||

    Arvin Vohra, vice chair of the Libertarian Party's National Committee wrote "Bad Idea: School Shootings. Good Idea: School Board Shootings."

    Why does 96% of America reject us? It must be because they love authoritarianism and just hate liberty. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the quality of our leadership and the things they say...

    " His past comments on the age of consent (he says it isn't the government's business)"

    Libertarian Moment?

  • John||

    Let's start a political party and make it all about pot, ensuring tranny's can shower at school with the sex of their choice, shooting up school boards, and ending the scourge of public roads. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Kivlor||

    Nothing could ever go wrong! We'll be loved by all!

    But can we put in the platform that sex with 8 year olds is fine as long as mom and dad don't object?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Works in Hollywood, just ask the parents of the Stranger Things kids.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Uhhh what?

  • DJK||

    I think we can all agree that the school board shooting was incredibly stupid and makes very little sense from a NAP standpoint. What was his point re: age of consent?

  • Kivlor||

    As long as they say yes, it's all good apparently. Because we can't know the exact moment when a person is truly of age, and because it varies from person to person, there shouldn't be any rules regarding that at all. If mom and dad say that the 31 year old Muslim next door can fuck their 8 year old daughter, that's all fine and dandy because Libertarianism.

    You can read it here.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Just as I believe parents, families, and culture should be the only people involved in education decisions, I also believe that they should be the ones involved in decisions about sexual readiness. In Ancient Rome, parents determined when their kids were ready. It's safe to say that parents generally care at least as much about their kids as the state does. They err on the side of being overprotective if anything.

    Today, parents often believe that they do not have that responsibility. Why? They believe the state is handling it, just as they wrongly believe that the state is effectively handling their kids' educations. At age 18, most parents completely abdicate responsibility and blithely send their kids to psychologically and sexually dangerous college environments. After all, they trust that the government has it all under control.

    The predictable result: by their mid-20s, many, many women have felt coerced, pressured, or manipulated by more powerful men. They often feel guilt, shame, and anger at that experience. With family support and influence entirely removed through cultural dependence on government, young people are left easily vulnerable, an end up making major errors in judgment.

    It's a fairly strong argument. What what specifically do you disagree with?

  • Kivlor||

    Just because mom and dad think it's okay for Mohammad to have sex with their 8 year old doesn't make it so. I'm fine with having AoC laws. What I'm not fine with is a ton of the additional BS that has been passed along with them.

    I'm fine with leaving most things up to the parents, with some restrictions on "No, that's not allowed".

    Most of his argument is completely disconnected from reality. The cause of the woes he is bitching about "women have felt coerced, pressured or manipulated by powerful men" has zero to do with AoC. Most of that can and should be laid at the feet of the "sexual revolution".

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't know why you're so obsessed with Mohammad here.

    The underlying argument is that the government cannot possibly make the correct decisions. His final paragraph makes it explicit:

    Sex and consent involve complex, personal decisions. The government is simpleminded and has proven itself ill-equipped to handle these issues. Families, individuals, and culture, not the government, should determine readiness.

    Which is very true. There is a very complex set of issues at play, and AoC laws do lead to many significant consequences. The increasing amounts of teens getting sexual crimes brought against them for sexting with other teens is an obvious example of this.

    I actually don't have particular issue with AoC laws, though I also don't have any particular preference for what is the correct age. But his argument is a fairly consistent conclusion from most libertarian principles.

  • gormadoc||

    Teens sexting is more a problem of child pornography laws. It's why the kids are always both the victim and the perpetrator.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Like anyone is ever going to stop horny terms from getting off with each other.

  • Kivlor||

    I guess we can break this down if you want. It's mostly mumbo-jumbo.The idea is to say a few things he knows you'll agree with, then confuse the reader, and in their confusion they will hopefully assume he made a coherent, substantiated argument since he said other things they agree with.

    It's safe to say that parents generally care at least as much about their kids as the state does. They err on the side of being overprotective if anything.

    Sure. True. But laws don't exist because people are generally opposed to them. They're there for the outliers.

    Eg: Theft. "It's safe to say that people generally care at least as much about their possessions as the state does. They'll err on the side of being overprotective of their things if anything." Therefore we don't need to make theft illegal.

  • Kivlor||

    Today, parents often believe that they do not have that responsibility. Why? They believe the state is handling it, just as they wrongly believe that the state is effectively handling their kids' educations.

    Parents think the state is making sure their kids aren't having sex, so they don't have that responsibility of protecting them? What, do people think that because there are police they don't have to worry about thieves? Maybe some, but this is not generally the case. If it were, the previous statement about parents generally erring on the side of overprotection of their kids wouldn't be true at all...

    So far, he's 0 for 2 on the "X thus AoC is bad."

  • Kivlor||

    At age 18, most parents completely abdicate responsibility and blithely send their kids to psychologically and sexually dangerous college environments. After all, they trust that the government has it all under control.

    This is interesting, when we consider it. At 18 they suddenly abdicate responsibility. Well, some do. It's almost like this has nothing to do with AoC, but something else. What happens in all states at age 18... I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's "Legal age of majority" where the parents are no longer legally responsible for their kids?

    Huh. Strange.

  • Kivlor||

    To add to the previous statement, the real issue here is that the parents are not only no longer legally responsible, but no longer have a legal ability to compel their children to not engage in bad behavior...

    So, age of consent continues to have nothing to do with the weird string of points he's making. No where in here does it logically follow "The goverment has it all under control". The reality is that they parents find themselves literally powerless. No one has it under control, so it's in the kids' hands now.

  • Kivlor||

    The predictable result: by their mid-20s, many, many women have felt coerced, pressured, or manipulated by more powerful men. They often feel guilt, shame, and anger at that experience.

    Wait, what? Okay, so the predictable result of AoC laws is that by their mid-20's women have some pretty bad sexual experiences and feel ashamed by it? Where the fuck does this logically follow? Where was the government's role in this, besides the libertine doctrine of "They're adults and you can't tell them what to do.

    Now... Icing on the cake...
    With family support and influence entirely removed through cultural dependence on government, young people are left easily vulnerable, an end up making major errors in judgment.

    Families, who are powerless in the libertine world people like this schmuck have created are going to do what? And still we have zero connection to AoC... WTF? This is a "Strong Argument" in your world BUCS?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Families, who are powerless in the libertine world people like this schmuck have created are going to do what?

    The issue is he seems to be allowing for a world where families actually have control over the AoC and the agreements with their culture and with their children. This is currently circumvented by the law, which does not allow any amount of choice on the part of parents.

    Your entire criticism is based on just asserting he believes parents should be powerless before AoC, while simultaneously agreeing parents should have no say before due to AoC.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, age of consent continues to have nothing to do with the weird string of points he's making. No where in here does it logically follow "The goverment has it all under control". The reality is that they parents find themselves literally powerless. No one has it under control, so it's in the kids' hands now

    It's saying the government has complete control before, and they are the sole arbiters of when the individuals are legally allowed to make that decision.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is interesting, when we consider it. At 18 they suddenly abdicate responsibility. Well, some do. It's almost like this has nothing to do with AoC, but something else. What happens in all states at age 18... I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's "Legal age of majority" where the parents are no longer legally responsible for their kids?

    But your point directly means that parents and children have no control whatsoever. Before 18 they can't consent in any way. And after 18 you believe they have no responsibility because they are now the legal age of majority. Beyond the fact that the legal age of majority and AoC are meaningfully and conceptually tied together, you have created a situation where the state has full authority over this, and parents and children have no input into their rights and actions.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Except there is a big difference between theft, property taken against people's will, and sexual consent which is the more complex issue at play here. When can parents and people give consent. The analog to theft would be rape, which I can presume he would consider repugnant and worthy of protection by law.

  • Kivlor||

    The issue is he seems to be allowing for a world where families actually have control over the AoC and the agreements with their culture and with their children. This is currently circumvented by the law, which does not allow any amount of choice on the part of parents.

    He is arguing for parents being the sole arbiters at any and every age. Something any reasonable person can disagree with. Parents are custodians, not owners of children.

    Your entire criticism is based on just asserting he believes parents should be powerless before AoC, while simultaneously agreeing parents should have no say before due to AoC.

    No. My criticism is that he thinks that there should be no AoC and that a parent can give consent for their 5 year old to be fucked by someone simply because "they're the parents".

    It's saying the government has complete control before, and they are the sole arbiters of when the individuals are legally allowed to make that decision.

    Go read it again. He is saying that the parents believe that because these laws exist the government is taking care of their children in this regard, so the parents don't feel they need to do anything. He even uses state education as an analogy to highlight this. That completely rejects his previous statement, as I described. It is also completely retarded.

  • Kivlor||

    But your point directly means that parents and children have no control whatsoever. Before 18 they can't consent in any way. And after 18 you believe they have no responsibility because they are now the legal age of majority. Beyond the fact that the legal age of majority and AoC are meaningfully and conceptually tied together, you have created a situation where the state has full authority over this, and parents and children have no input into their rights and actions.

    I believe this is the case. I don't believe it should be the case. (except I've not said anything about AoC being 18, because I don't support that, nor do I think that is the case currently nationwide) I'm opposed to a bunch of the nonsense that has led to it. But removing AoC won't cure the problem, it will only place the children whose parents won't protect them in the position of being beyond help.

    There should be reform. Just not this.

  • Kivlor||

    BUCS I want to say that you are right that my theft analogy was lazy. I think it still works, but it's a far cry from what we're talking about. Since we're talking custodial duties, let's use another custodial duty as an example: Feeding your kids.

    As a parent, it is your duty to feed your kids. You have a ton of leeway in what you feed them, how often you feed them, etc. It's up to you, to a great degree, so long as you are not malnourishing them to the point of serious harm. We set a bottom limit for parents. Anything below this is unacceptable. Age of Consent is the exact same as this. "Anything before this is unacceptable".

    Using the same logic of the retard that wrote that article, we should abolish malnutrition laws for parents because it should be their discretion, and parents generally care about their kids more than the government. Except those laws don't exist for the "general" parents who do. They exist to protect--or avenge--the kids whose parents don't.

  • Drake||

    "Kivlor|4.13.18 @ 5:57PM|#

    Most of his argument is completely disconnected from reality. The cause of the woes he is bitching about "women have felt coerced, pressured or manipulated by powerful men" has zero to do with AoC. Most of that can and should be laid at the feet of the "sexual revolution"."

    LOL. What a bunch of bullshit. Yeah, rape started in the fucking 60's. Right. Whatever you say, dude. You sound like a fucking raghead just saying that. Maybe you should convert.

    Women being raped and coerced is as old as mankind itself. The sexual revolution actually made things more balanced for women, if anything. Things are better than ever.

  • Kivlor||

    LOL. What a bunch of bullshit. Yeah, rape started in the fucking 60's. Right. Whatever you say, dude. You sound like a fucking raghead just saying that. Maybe you should convert.

    Women being raped and coerced is as old as mankind itself. The sexual revolution actually made things more balanced for women, if anything. Things are better than ever.

    This is retarded. Nowhere did I say that rape didn't exist before the 60's or the sexual revolution. I shortened a quote from him about how girls go to college, and find themselves in that environment and their parents absolve themselves of it. Which he blames on the age of consent. But that environment and situation is not created by AoC. However, the sexual revolution certainly has played a role in it.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I'd be interested if you could site any statistically relevant age of consent prosecutions involving 8 year olds and 30 year old Muslims. I'm pretty sure that a libertarian jury would return a guilty verdict on a charge of rape because the parent's consent amounts to coercion. In the real world age of consent violations always involve consensual sex between sexually mature teens and adults, usually young adults. It is a statutory violation and the victim is the state that enforces the statute. The common law definition of a crime requires that there be a victim. If the state can be a victim, there is no limit to what can be deemed a crime.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Know what age of consent laws are? Not worth any time to debate.

    How many people are going to be excited about the LP when you can sell them on the idea of their 15 year old getting plowed by some 35 year old?

    Also this is not Ancient Rome so who gives a fuck what they did.

    Vohra is just a charlatan weirdo who likes to act out for attention. Worthless dude.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The assumption that all cultures are equally moral and parents have the best interests of their kids in mind.

    Or to put it another way: Vohra sees nothing wrong with 30 year old lawyers picking up their dates from high school.

    I'm his attempt to get government *out* in order to protect civil liberties, he has replaced it with one of the top contenders for "most frequently used to justify violating civil liberties".

  • Kivlor||

    Oh, and just imagine what this guy thinks of parents who use religion, tradition, and social pressure to deter their kids from having sex. I guarantee he's opposed to it. "Oh they're backwards" That kind of BS.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @Kivlor
    Sometimes it's BS, sure. Religion and social pressure would have kept me an unmarried celibate misanthrope after all.

    Just as religious and social pressure to marry off my sisters when they were 13 would also have been BS.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Could you please explain your point more. I understand you're comparing him to Moore, but I don't follow your final paragraph.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Replace "I'm" with "in." And his point is that Vohra's argument/assertion is exactly the sort of thing that is used to justify government in the first place. Basically, taking the most extreme position which a majority of people emotionally oppose, i.e. dumb.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If you read what V-man wrote, he never said "parents" should decide when their kids are ready for sex. He always said "parents and culture".

    In short, he wants to put the fox back in charge of the hen house.

  • MarkLastname||

    Because culture means 'all the pedophiles?'

    The problem is that no culture where pedophilia is widely accepted will elect politicians that oppose it. Government reflects the morals of the people.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Parents and culture?

    Wouldn't one agree that some laws that are passed in this country, like AoC, are in fact just societal/cultural norms legislated?

    This doesn't mean necessarily it should be legislated, but in our representative system of government, voting parents, all other voters, and the shared culture of all voters, is expressed in these laws.

    IE - parents and culture already control AoC.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "IE - parents and culture already control AoC."
    That really is the point.

  • Devastator||

    lol because I read about stupid parents all the time doing stupid things to their kids, mostly because of hysterical religious beliefs. The government has a great point about protecting kids from raping adults. That's not government overreach by any but the most loony libertarian's beliefs. His argument falls apart completely in light of that obvious fact.

  • gormadoc||

    The problem with him and the age of consent is that when questioned "Would you, Arvin Vohra, have sex with a 14 year old that consented?", his reply was "Probably not, but that's not the point. My personal life choices are mine, and I don't believe in forcing them on others."

    Here's a bunch of his statements on the subject.

  • ||

    Vohra believes those people who disagree with him DO love authoritarianism and hate liberty. That's why he says stuff like this: to convince the non-crazies to leave.

  • ||

    I'm commenting on Hit & Run in order to buy sex.

    Anybody got a problem with that? I'm asking you, FOSTA/SESTA!

  • Ken Hagler||

    At least there are six members of the National Committee who want a Libertarian Party and not a continuation of the Last Chance For Failed Republican Politicians Party that they've had for some years now.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The "nays" were David Demarest, Jim Lark, Ed Marsh, Nicholas Sarwark"

    Just to be clear- Nick Sarwark thinks Tom Woods is racist because he won't sign an asinine petition, but is totally against get rid of this guy. Bold move Cotton

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I like Tom Woods, and I don't think he is racist, but he has said some dumb things in the past.

  • Just Say'n||

    "some dumb things in the past"

    I think that is a prerequisite to be a libertarian commentator.

    I see what you're saying, though, I like Jeffrey Tucker, but he has also said some dumb things in the past. Drudging up past statements to try and tarnish people who are really obscure to the general public in order to silence different points of view within the movement is not helpful. It's pretty clear that the Johnson people clearly want to expunge Rothbard and the Mises people. Which is not going to have the desired effects that they believe it will

  • ||

    Tom Woods loves him anyone who's anti-establishment, regardless of how awful they are. But mocking him for it on the one hand and doing nothing about Vohra on the other is highly hypocritical.

  • creech||

    I takes 2/3 vote to kick out an officer? Didn't chair Jim Turney get booted in 1988, for being "ineffective," by something less than 2/3 in the "Bergland coup?"

  • JohnKing||

    It'll be statements like this that the media will harp on, and with good reason. He should resign, or be voted out.

  • Ron||

    and proof of why so many laugh at the libertarian party.

    Some of us who own guns also believe in taxation for a functioning government and yes we believe we are over taxed but not to the point of starting wars

    this guy is just nuts over the top

  • EscherEnigma||

    Is it really so hard to find good news for libertarian politicians? The past two weeks have been remarkable in that I've actually seen news stories about bona fide libertarian pols, and in both cases it was that they said something that's nucking futs.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Reason tends to focus largely on national news where libertarianism is particularly rare.

    As for other sources, they actively choose things to make libertarians look bad. I've commented on this a few times, but it's striking to me how often I see articles "Why I'm no longer a libertarian" type stuff on other websites. They tend to be the same regurgitated schlock, and they often indicate that they weren't particularly libertarian minded beforehand, but they keep making the articles.

    And It's strange, as I see us as a fairly small, pretty unpowerful group and so I wonder why I see such disproportionate action against us.

  • gormadoc||

    Well, we're racist. Nancy MacLean proved that. Since we're racist we have to be properly put in our place.

  • gormadoc||

    So you missed the news about Laura Ebke featured in national news, including Reason? That was definitely positive.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Forgot about it. So that's actually three libertarian pols I've heard about in the last two weeks, and I've of them wasn't nucking futs.

  • Longtobefree||

    Wait, what? Pledge? Oath? And all along I thought I was a Libertarian because I believed in individual freedom.
    OOPS.

    I clicked the link and see that the pledge is a real thing, but includes the critical word INITIATE. And yet all the babbling is about force/violence in absolute. So given all the violence initiated by school boards (allowing crime in the name of diversity, searches, economic threats of withholding diplomas for non-compliance with groupthink etc), maybe his comment is self-defense?
    Maybe he is indicating better the board (alleged adults capable of defense) than the students (poor helpless babes)?

    Anyway, it was fun while it lasted.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    No, you're a libertarian (lower case l) because you believed in individual freedom. To be a Libertarian (upper case L), you've got to join the Party. Capitalization matters.

  • gormadoc||

    But the Vice Chair is not my subordinate. He, along with every other officer and at-large member of the LNC, serves at the pleasure of the delegates at convention.

    This is some weak-ass reasoning. The party has procedures like that so that it can be used if necessary, not so that we can avoid taking a stance for risk of offending idiots. The LNC is only there for the good of the party and the movement and Vohra is good for nothing.

    The national party is quickly losing its support from the state parties, which have done much better than the national party and without their help.

    I was upset for a while that Reason has been ignoring events of import within the LP but it seems we've cleared now.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I wish they would focus more on local politics in general. Our entire nation and people underappreciate the importance of state/country/city politics. This is where we have perhaps the most direct impact on our lives and is where we can most directly impact government.

    The obsession with the federal government has also led to the concentration of power there, as lesser sources have increasingly become not viewed as a way to deal with issues.

  • Tony||

    Totally obliterating the Overton window is kind of a self-fulfilling mission of defeat. Also joking about murdering people.

  • Harvard||

    Shit. I'd almost made up my mind on the issue and then Tony posts. Experience and common sense tells me the opposite position is correct.

  • MarkLastname||

    I was just thinking how the LP is taken too seriously today, and how great it is we have guys like this to solve that problem.

  • The Metonymy||

    I'm not sure where I stand on this. What model of gun would be used?

  • MarkLastname||

    A fully semi-automatic assault gun?

  • The Metonymy||

    That's a violation of the NAP. Should use a Nerf Super Soaker.

  • Eidde||

    To be fair, if this guy were expelled, then either the MSM would ignore the issue (most likely) or if it took note of the controversy at all, it would be in order to snark about "Libertarian Party member expelled for being too honest about what Libertarians really think, blah blah."

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    We need Vohra around if only to be the exception that proves the rule that LP members are sexless white male D&D nerds.

  • Agammamon||

    "certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

    The LP needs to understand that that is *not the same thing as pacifism*. And saying 'shoot a school board' is not unanimously wrong - if that board has sufficiently wronged you, would responding in kind not be appropriate? We don't have a huge problem with shooting burglars, as a concept, where the only crime against you may simply be that a dude has entered your home without permission while you were there.

    If violence against the government is off the table for the LP - then what's the point of defending the 2nd Amendment at all? If you'll never, ever, under any circumstances, use the guns against the government, then what justification is there to use them against anyone else? What's the point in wasting the political capital.

    That's the problem with the LP that the Johnson/Weld pairing highlighted - it really has no consistent principles except 'get elected'. And while there are tons of people who say our philosophy is pointless unless we can get into office so, maybe, bend a little and accommodate I point out stuff like this.

    If you're going to compromise on basic freedoms - then you're going to lose those freedoms. If you compromise on basic tenants to get elected - then you have no basic tenants and you are no different than all the other political parties and so . . . are of no use to me.

  • MarkLastname||

    Shooting a burglar who broke into your home is not the same as shooting a neighbor who insists on leaving his garbage cans on your tree lawn. Not all transgressions warrant lethal response. For Christ's sake, have a sense of proportionality.

  • Agammamon||

    No shit? Really? Who would have thought that different levels of aggression warrant different levels of force.

    But to say that, no matter what your neighbor does, violence is off the table . . .

  • Agammamon||

    "has displayed a persistent and consistent ignorance as to the impact of his statements . . .

    I agree - its a damn good reason to suspend his ass.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Even Ayn Rand said the authoritarian on taxes is HIM.
    Will of the people. Consent of the governed. The moral is the chosen.
    This is why the libertarian brand, and modern libertarian ideology is rejected by 91% of libertarians.. (Cato survey)
    If he doesn't like it, he can emigrate. Rule by 5% is hardly libertarian. And rejection by 91% of libertarians is NOT a libertarian moment!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Outlier groups like the LP are--like it or not--whack-job magnets. This Vohra character would be more useful over at Vice or maybe a Tea Party rally than making idiotic policy for the LP. This "age of consent" nonsense has already undone much of the progress the LP made happen by running Toni Nathan for Veep and writing Roe v. Wade. Stirring up hate groups in a Quixotic gambit that can only LOSE us votes galvanize political opposition is the absolute height of idiocy. This kind of sabotage is what Eternal vigilance should gird us against.

  • Tom Beebe||

    I am not surprised having seen posts from this LWNJ on Facebook. We need to disavow him as quickly as possible !

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Being politically tone deaf isn't a crime. But for any high position in a political party, it should still be a firing offense.

  • dchang0||

    The Republicans got a brash, hyper-polarizing, highly-offensive, uncontrollable loudmouth in Trump, and it helped them win POTUS.

    Why should the Libertarian Party assume that playing Mr. Nice Guy like Mitt Romney is the correct way to go?

  • BruceMajors||

    I like Arvin as a person and I am a fan of dark humor and turning off your filter.

    But I'd rather see Larry Sharpe running the LNC.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online