If we’re going for brevity, I think I’d prefer to forego any “whereas” clauses altogether rather than say so little. Limiting our justifications to “whereas tariffs are a tax on imports” seems so insufficient to me as a rationale (not to mention obvious to most readers), that I think we’d do better not to give any, than to say only this.
But if we don’t include any “whereas” clauses, I’d suggest this minimum language, in order to distinguish between countries, companies, and governments, which I think is always useful and important to do, and to make clear our opposition to any and all tariffs. (The Trump administration may well impose more, and I don’t think we necessarily want to put out a new press release every time this happens, or look as if we’re favoring some countries over others.)
“The Libertarian Party of San Francisco calls for the repeal of President Trump’s recent tariffs, imposed by executive order on products imported to the United States from companies based in Mexico, Canada and China, and opposes the imposition of any other tariffs or government impediments to voluntary international trade by this or any future administration.”
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.
Thanks, Jawj. I’m copying the other recipients on this reply.
Our bylaws have long empowered the LPSF’s officers to act between meetings to pass resolutions or other matters. It’s sub-optimal for all members not to have a voice in such decisions; on the other hand, waiting a month can make our statements and actions less timely. As with lots of things, it’s kind of a balancing act. If you have an idea for changing how we operate that you think would be better, you’re always welcome to put it forward.
In this case I think we actually would have had enough time to discuss and pass the resolution on Saturday if we’d used our meeting time better, or if you’d been able to stay a few extra minutes – though this is of course entirely voluntary and I understand you had stuff to do.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Anti-dumping laws are designed to prevent government subsidies to allow foreign sales at a loss as a form of protectionism for a country’s favoured industries. But you’re right – it’s complicated and shouldn’t prevent free trade.
But I don’t think we should allow post-meeting email exchanges to extend our monthly meetings. If we didn’t agree on a resolution at our meeting yesterday, we can take it up next month. It’s fine for those who want to discuss it between meetings to do so on the discussion list or otherwise by email, but I’m not okay with “email meetings” passing resolutions and doing formal business outside a regulary called meeting.
Jawj, I’m not precisely sure what you’re saying about the matter of “anti-dumping” laws. Perhaps you can say more about this. I presume you aren’t suggesting it’s okay for governments to prohibit companies from selling things at a loss? If you were pointing out that government subsidies of exports are problematic, I fully agree, although I didn’t notice anything in the language Richard suggested that seemed likely to make readers think we do support such subsidies.
How would folks feel about this slightly expanded language?
"Whereas taxation (the confiscation of resources from innocent people without their individual consent) is theft and a form of slavery; and
Whereas tariffs are taxes on imports (which typically end up raising prices for consumers and lowering their standards of living);
Therefore the Libertarian Party of San Francisco calls for the repeal of President Trump’s recent tariffs, imposed by Executive Order on products imported to the United States from companies based in Mexico, Canada and China, and opposes the imposition of any other tariffs or government impediments to voluntary international trade by this or any future administration.”
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
···
On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:01 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD <jedgreenwald@comcast.net mailto:jedgreenwald@comcast.net> wrote:
On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net mailto:realreform@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mar 9, 2025, at 4:07 PM, Richard Fast <fastrichard77@gmail.com mailto:fastrichard77@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD <jedgreenwald@comcast.net mailto:jedgreenwald@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
To: fastrichard77@gmail.com mailto:fastrichard77@gmail.com <fastrichard77@gmail.com mailto:fastrichard77@gmail.com>
---------- Original Message ----------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD <jedgreenwald@comcast.net mailto:jedgreenwald@comcast.net>
To: Richard Fast <fastrichard77@gmail.com mailto:fastrichard77@gmail.com>
Date: 03/09/2025 3:03 PM PDT
Subject: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
I’d support a simplified version of the resolution, as follows:
“Whereas tariffs are a tax on imports, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes President Trump’s recent tariffs on products imported to the United States from Mexico, Canada and China and calls for their repeal.”
This avoids the vexed question of anti-dumping laws.
If it matters, I don’t know how to cc anyone on my message.