LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution

All,

Attached are the edited LPSF February minutes as well as the March draft
minutes. Please review the latter at your earliest convenience.

At our meeting today, we discussed a proposed resolution opposing Trump’s
tariffs and pending trade war. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before we
could vote on it. The resolution draft currently reads:

···

Resolution Opposing President Trump’s Tariffs

“Whereas tariffs are a tax on imports, they will tend to mean higher prices
for U.S. consumers,

“Be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes
categorically President Trump’s tariffs on companies based in Mexico,
Canada, and China, as well as any future tariffs, and call for their
immediate repeal.”


If the committee is amenable, I’d like to pass such a resolution via e-mail
vote so we can post in on our socials. While not common, such e-mail action
is permitted in LPSF bylaws and has been done in the past. Voting on the
current language would be the easiest way to do this. However, I’d like to
suggest amending the first paragraph to say “Whereas tariffs, as a tax on
imports, tend to mean higher prices for U.S. consumers,” before making a
motion to adopt the full text. How does this amendment sound to folks?

Feel free to reply with any feedback on the resolution or the minutes.

Thanks,
Richard

(attachments)

LPSF February 2025 minutes (1).pdf (122 KB)
LPSF March 2025 minutes.pdf (94.9 KB)

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.

···

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
To: fastrichard77@gmail.com fastrichard77@gmail.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
To: Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com
Date: 03/09/2025 3:03 PM PDT
Subject: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution

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 4:07 PM, Richard Fast 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.

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 )))

···

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net wrote:

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.

On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild realreform@earthlink.net wrote:

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 4:07 PM, Richard Fast 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.

I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.

···

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net > wrote:

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.

On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild realreform@earthlink.net wrote:

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 4:07 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
To: fastrichard77@gmail.com fastrichard77@gmail.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
To: Richard Fast 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.

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.

Starchild, in my first email I said the easiest thing to do would be to
adopt the language we crafted at the meeting. That was to avoid this kind
of back and forth. At this point, I’d say Jawj’s version sans the first
paragraph would be best.

···

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 11:30 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:01 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com wrote:

I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:
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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net > wrote:

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.
On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild realreform@earthlink.net wrote:

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 4:07 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
To: fastrichard77@gmail.com fastrichard77@gmail.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
To: Richard Fast 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.

Well Richard, the basic choice is you can propose the officers vote on approving any version you want to put forward, or you can wait until next month’s meeting so any member present can vote.

I don’t think Jawj’s language – or any that we’re likely to come up with for an anti-tariff resolution – would be awful, but unless I’m persuaded that there’s some great urgency which would make it unwise, the wordsmith in me will probably lead me to suggest an amended version of whatever language is proposed, if I can think of wording that I believe would be a little better. Then either the officers or the monthly meeting participants can choose to adopt that amendment, or not.

Naturally it’s always easier to pass something if people just vote to approve whatever is first proposed, but it’s not that difficult to discuss a little further either, and sometimes it can result in wording that most people or even everyone prefers.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

···

On Mar 10, 2025, at 3:16 AM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com wrote:
Starchild, in my first email I said the easiest thing to do would be to adopt the language we crafted at the meeting. That was to avoid this kind of back and forth. At this point, I’d say Jawj’s version sans the first paragraph would be best.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 11:30 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:01 PM, Richard Fast <fastrichard77@gmail.com mailto:fastrichard77@gmail.com> wrote:

I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD <jedgreenwald@comcast.net mailto:jedgreenwald@comcast.net> wrote:

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.
On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net mailto:realreform@earthlink.net> wrote:

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 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.

All,

I move to adopt the following resolution:

Resolution Against President Trump’s Tariffs

“Whereas tariffs are a tax on imports incurred by U.S. consumers, the
Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes President Trump’s recent tariffs
on products imported to the United States from firms based in Mexico,
Canada, and China, as well as any future tariffs on any other countries,
and calls for their immediate repeal.”

For a vote to proceed, my motion requires a second. At which point,
discussion would be germaine but I honestly am not interested in further
wordsmithing. I’m hoping for a quick yea or nay, and move on to
other things.

Thanks.

···

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 7:35 AM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

Well Richard, the basic choice is you can propose the officers vote on
approving any version you want to put forward, or you can wait until next
month’s meeting so any member present can vote.

I don’t think Jawj’s language – or any that we’re likely to come up with
for an anti-tariff resolution – would be awful, but unless I’m persuaded
that there’s some great urgency which would make it unwise, the wordsmith
in me will probably lead me to suggest an amended version of whatever
language is proposed, if I can think of wording that I believe would be a
little better. Then either the officers or the monthly meeting participants
can choose to adopt that amendment, or not.

Naturally it’s always *easier *to pass something if people just vote to
approve whatever is first proposed, but it’s not that difficult to discuss
a little further either, and sometimes it can result in wording that most
people or even everyone prefers.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

On Mar 10, 2025, at 3:16 AM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com wrote:

Starchild, in my first email I said the easiest thing to do would be to
adopt the language we crafted at the meeting. That was to avoid this kind
of back and forth. At this point, I’d say Jawj’s version sans the first
paragraph would be best.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 11:30 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:01 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >> wrote:

I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:
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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net >> wrote:

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.
On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild realreform@earthlink.net wrote:

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 4:07 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
To: fastrichard77@gmail.com fastrichard77@gmail.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
To: Richard Fast 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.

I second adopting this resolution precisely as it is written.

···

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:12 PM Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com wrote:

All,

I move to adopt the following resolution:

Resolution Against President Trump’s Tariffs

“Whereas tariffs are a tax on imports incurred by U.S. consumers, the
Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes President Trump’s recent tariffs
on products imported to the United States from firms based in Mexico,
Canada, and China, as well as any future tariffs on any other countries,
and calls for their immediate repeal.”

For a vote to proceed, my motion requires a second. At which point,
discussion would be germaine but I honestly am not interested in further
wordsmithing. I’m hoping for a quick yea or nay, and move on to
other things.

Thanks.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 7:35 AM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

Well Richard, the basic choice is you can propose the officers vote on
approving any version you want to put forward, or you can wait until next
month’s meeting so any member present can vote.

I don’t think Jawj’s language – or any that we’re likely to come up with
for an anti-tariff resolution – would be awful, but unless I’m persuaded
that there’s some great urgency which would make it unwise, the wordsmith
in me will probably lead me to suggest an amended version of whatever
language is proposed, if I can think of wording that I believe would be a
little better. Then either the officers or the monthly meeting participants
can choose to adopt that amendment, or not.

Naturally it’s always *easier *to pass something if people just vote to
approve whatever is first proposed, but it’s not that difficult to discuss
a little further either, and sometimes it can result in wording that most
people or even everyone prefers.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

On Mar 10, 2025, at 3:16 AM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >> wrote:

Starchild, in my first email I said the easiest thing to do would be to
adopt the language we crafted at the meeting. That was to avoid this kind
of back and forth. At this point, I’d say Jawj’s version sans the first
paragraph would be best.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 11:30 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:01 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >>> wrote:

I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:
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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net >>> wrote:

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.
On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild realreform@earthlink.net wrote:

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 4:07 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >>> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
To: fastrichard77@gmail.com fastrichard77@gmail.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
To: Richard Fast 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.

I support adopting

···

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 8:55 AM Trip S. financiallypossible@gmail.com wrote:

I second adopting this resolution precisely as it is written.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:12 PM Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com > wrote:

All,

I move to adopt the following resolution:

Resolution Against President Trump’s Tariffs

“Whereas tariffs are a tax on imports incurred by U.S. consumers, the
Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes President Trump’s recent tariffs
on products imported to the United States from firms based in Mexico,
Canada, and China, as well as any future tariffs on any other countries,
and calls for their immediate repeal.”

For a vote to proceed, my motion requires a second. At which point,
discussion would be germaine but I honestly am not interested in further
wordsmithing. I’m hoping for a quick yea or nay, and move on to
other things.

Thanks.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 7:35 AM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net >> wrote:

Well Richard, the basic choice is you can propose the officers vote on
approving any version you want to put forward, or you can wait until next
month’s meeting so any member present can vote.

I don’t think Jawj’s language – or any that we’re likely to come up with
for an anti-tariff resolution – would be awful, but unless I’m persuaded
that there’s some great urgency which would make it unwise, the wordsmith
in me will probably lead me to suggest an amended version of whatever
language is proposed, if I can think of wording that I believe would be a
little better. Then either the officers or the monthly meeting participants
can choose to adopt that amendment, or not.

Naturally it’s always *easier *to pass something if people just vote to
approve whatever is first proposed, but it’s not that difficult to discuss
a little further either, and sometimes it can result in wording that most
people or even everyone prefers.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

On Mar 10, 2025, at 3:16 AM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >>> wrote:

Starchild, in my first email I said the easiest thing to do would be to
adopt the language we crafted at the meeting. That was to avoid this kind
of back and forth. At this point, I’d say Jawj’s version sans the first
paragraph would be best.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 11:30 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net wrote:

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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:01 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >>>> wrote:

I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net >>>> wrote:
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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net >>>> wrote:

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.
On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild realreform@earthlink.net wrote:

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 4:07 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >>>> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
To: fastrichard77@gmail.com fastrichard77@gmail.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
To: Richard Fast 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.

I vote in favor.

···

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025, 9:08 AM Brendan McMillion brendanmcmillion@gmail.com wrote:

I support adopting

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 8:55 AM Trip S. financiallypossible@gmail.com > wrote:

I second adopting this resolution precisely as it is written.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:12 PM Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >> wrote:

All,

I move to adopt the following resolution:

Resolution Against President Trump’s Tariffs

“Whereas tariffs are a tax on imports incurred by U.S. consumers, the
Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes President Trump’s recent tariffs
on products imported to the United States from firms based in Mexico,
Canada, and China, as well as any future tariffs on any other countries,
and calls for their immediate repeal.”

For a vote to proceed, my motion requires a second. At which point,
discussion would be germaine but I honestly am not interested in further
wordsmithing. I’m hoping for a quick yea or nay, and move on to
other things.

Thanks.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 7:35 AM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net >>> wrote:

Well Richard, the basic choice is you can propose the officers vote on
approving any version you want to put forward, or you can wait until next
month’s meeting so any member present can vote.

I don’t think Jawj’s language – or any that we’re likely to come up
with for an anti-tariff resolution – would be awful, but unless I’m
persuaded that there’s some great urgency which would make it unwise, the
wordsmith in me will probably lead me to suggest an amended version of
whatever language is proposed, if I can think of wording that I believe
would be a little better. Then either the officers or the monthly meeting
participants can choose to adopt that amendment, or not.

Naturally it’s always *easier *to pass something if people just vote
to approve whatever is first proposed, but it’s not that difficult to
discuss a little further either, and sometimes it can result in wording
that most people or even everyone prefers.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

On Mar 10, 2025, at 3:16 AM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >>>> wrote:

Starchild, in my first email I said the easiest thing to do would be to
adopt the language we crafted at the meeting. That was to avoid this kind
of back and forth. At this point, I’d say Jawj’s version sans the first
paragraph would be best.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 11:30 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net >>>> wrote:

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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:01 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >>>>> wrote:

I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net >>>>> wrote:
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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net >>>>> wrote:

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.
On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild realreform@earthlink.net wrote:

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 4:07 PM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com >>>>> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 3:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: LPSF meeting minutes / Trump tariff resolution
To: fastrichard77@gmail.com fastrichard77@gmail.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JAWJ GREENWALD jedgreenwald@comcast.net
To: Richard Fast 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.

Great, it seems like we have a consensus! I’ll vote in favor as well, meaning it’s unanimously adopted by vote of the officers.

By the way, Jawj emailed me separately to ask not to be “cc’d” on further emails about this topic.

As a rule, I also try to avoid posting messages simultaneously to more than one of our lists, unless it’s something super important, since many people are subscribed to one list and this will cause them to receive duplicate messages. So I’ve also removed the Discussion list from the recipient addresses (voting on a resolution is more of an Activists list topic).

One more thought – while national and global events matter, and I’m not averse to our weighing in on them, I think we should generally strive to make our primary focus on things more specific to San Francisco, in keeping with our mission as the SF area chapter of the Libertarian Party of California. So in terms of potential resolutions, I’d encourage people to consider what we may want to say on local issues.

While not quite strictly local, a piece of bad state legislation, AB 379, that seeks to re-criminalize loitering for purposes of prostitution recently came to my attention (see message below), so I’m going to suggest we pass a resolution against it. But it’s just been introduced and these things move slowly, so I think it can wait until our April meeting.

Another incident worth commenting that is strictly local and just occurred today, is the Board of Supervisors authorizing a nearly $3 million settlement to the family of a man who killed himself while incarcerated in the SF jail after spending months locked up in pre-trial detention. Since this is very timely, I suggest we as LPSF officers issue a resolution on it now, and invite your thoughts or ideas for language.

The story is here – I wrote a reader comment, which may or may not have posted yet, that makes the basic points I think we should make, if these are not obvious:

https://missionlocal.org/2025/03/s-f-to-pay-2-8m-settlement-to-parents-of-inmate-who-hanged-himself-in-city-jail/
S.F. to pay $2.8M settlement to parents of inmate who hanged himself in city jail

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

···

On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:42 PM, Maxine mistressmax@mindspring.com wrote:

Bad Legislation Alert:

California legislator Maggy Krell has introduced AB 379 Bill Text - AB-379 Crimes: prostitution.

This bill is a whopper! 1) Mandates diversion programs for all! 2) sets up new ‘ho tax’ and 3) Re-criminalizes ‘loitering with intent’ for clients of sex workers, essentially implementing a version of the Nordic Model. If passed, this bill will be the slippery slope…Here’s the ‘fact sheet’. https://a06.asmdc.org/sites/a06.asmdc.org/files/2025-02/AB%20379%20(Krell)%20-%20Human%20Trafficking%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Final.pdf

Please submit your letter of opposition to AB379. Here is our letter of which you can copy to personalize and submit. Please submit your letters ASAP but there is no hearing scheduled for this bill currently in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
Letter - Oppose AB 379 - Google Docs

Submit a letter opposing AB379 to the legislative portal.
Instructions for submitting a letter of opposition to AB 379 via the legislative portal are below.
● Use the google link above to download, quickly personalize and attach your letter to be uploaded.
● Click this link California Legislature Position Letter Portal https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/__;!!KtCfuD9hmw!q_sktxW3l70yt5TRDb1c5sBMjKSdllj3TYnQxXm2ZL0a6QCf7PO30qK12Uvzv-52emSbp1wwmts$to access the portal.
○ Create an account if you do not already have one.
○ Click on “Submit a Letter”
○ Select a bill
■ Measure: AB 379
○ Session Type: Regular
○ Click “Search”
○ Select Stance: Oppose
○ Enter Your Stance
■ Option 1: Type in why you are opposing AB 379; or
■ Option 2 (Recommended) Check the box labeled “Submit a letter instead.” Subject: Oppose AB 379
○ Upload your letter, review, and submit.
Send us an email letting us know you submitted an opposition letter too please. info@esplerp.org

On Mar 11, 2025, at 10:46 AM, Richard Fast fastrichard77@gmail.com wrote:

I vote in favor.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025, 9:08 AM Brendan McMillion <brendanmcmillion@gmail.com mailto:brendanmcmillion@gmail.com> wrote:

I support adopting

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 8:55 AM Trip S. <financiallypossible@gmail.com mailto:financiallypossible@gmail.com> wrote:

I second adopting this resolution precisely as it is written.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:12 PM Richard Fast <fastrichard77@gmail.com mailto:fastrichard77@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

I move to adopt the following resolution:

Resolution Against President Trump’s Tariffs

“Whereas tariffs are a tax on imports incurred by U.S. consumers, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco opposes President Trump’s recent tariffs on products imported to the United States from firms based in Mexico, Canada, and China, as well as any future tariffs on any other countries, and calls for their immediate repeal.”

For a vote to proceed, my motion requires a second. At which point, discussion would be germaine but I honestly am not interested in further wordsmithing. I’m hoping for a quick yea or nay, and move on to other things.

Thanks.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 7:35 AM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

Well Richard, the basic choice is you can propose the officers vote on approving any version you want to put forward, or you can wait until next month’s meeting so any member present can vote.

I don’t think Jawj’s language – or any that we’re likely to come up with for an anti-tariff resolution – would be awful, but unless I’m persuaded that there’s some great urgency which would make it unwise, the wordsmith in me will probably lead me to suggest an amended version of whatever language is proposed, if I can think of wording that I believe would be a little better. Then either the officers or the monthly meeting participants can choose to adopt that amendment, or not.

Naturally it’s always easier to pass something if people just vote to approve whatever is first proposed, but it’s not that difficult to discuss a little further either, and sometimes it can result in wording that most people or even everyone prefers.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

On Mar 10, 2025, at 3:16 AM, Richard Fast <fastrichard77@gmail.com mailto:fastrichard77@gmail.com> wrote:
Starchild, in my first email I said the easiest thing to do would be to adopt the language we crafted at the meeting. That was to avoid this kind of back and forth. At this point, I’d say Jawj’s version sans the first paragraph would be best.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 11:30 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:01 PM, Richard Fast <fastrichard77@gmail.com mailto:fastrichard77@gmail.com> wrote:

I prefer Jawj’s version for its brevity.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, 10:27 PM Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
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 )))

On Mar 9, 2025, at 9:40 PM, JAWJ GREENWALD <jedgreenwald@comcast.net mailto:jedgreenwald@comcast.net> wrote:

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.
On 03/09/2025 8:45 PM PDT Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net mailto:realreform@earthlink.net> wrote:

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 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.

So y’all are perfectly okay with the tariffs the Canadian Chinese & Mexican governments place on US Workers’ products ( from produce to hardware & software ) & thus reduce the international market reach & reduce local JOB / INCOME opportunities for your fellow US & California Citizens, who will otherwise be forced to rely on #USgovt WELFARE schemes that YOU Will ultimate subsidize from YOUR Earnings & Savings in the short & long terms — which the TEMPORARY / Negotiable / Bargaining Chip “Trump tariffs” are clearly being used to correct ???

I doubt You grow the LPSF among higher income TaxPayers & Voters, but that doesn’t seem to be a priority as long as the LPSF simply shills for SF / CA & National Ds vested in the unsustainable status quo of the past 3-5 decades.

Hi Marty,

I have no reason to think any of us support tariffs being imposed by any government.

Arguably the resolution could have been worded better to make this clearer – one of the advantages of allowing time for a bit of wordsmithing – but the language we approved does say that we oppose "any future tariffs on any other countries”, which would include tariffs on the United States (or technically, on companies based in the U.S.).

I do encourage you to try to give your fellow Libertarians a little benefit of the doubt, and not immediately assume statist motives or beliefs. But thanks for weighing in. We still have your proposed high speed rail resolution on the table, by the way, but didn’t take it up on Saturday since you weren’t at the meeting.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

···

On Mar 11, 2025, at 10:05 PM, iMRMosLV! via LPSF Forum noreply@forum.lpsf.org wrote:

FRNP https://forum.lpsf.org/u/frnp
March 12
So y’all are perfectly okay with the tariffs the Canadian Chinese & Mexican governments place on US Workers’ products ( from produce to hardware & software ) & thus reduce the international market reach & reduce local JOB / INCOME opportunities for your fellow US & California Citizens, who will otherwise be forced to rely on #USgovt WELFARE schemes that YOU Will ultimate subsidize from YOUR Earnings & Savings in the short & long terms — which the TEMPORARY / Negotiable / Bargaining Chip “Trump tariffs” are clearly being used to correct ???

I doubt You grow the LPSF among higher income TaxPayers & Voters, but that doesn’t seem to be a priority as long as the LPSF simply shills for SF / CA & National Ds vested in the unsustainable status quo of the past 3-5 decades.

Any updates on the CA High Speed Rail Scam “resolution” I submitted previously now that US Rep Kevin Kiley ( CA-3rd District ) has just this month ( 4 March ) escalated calls for FBI Director Kashyap Patel to investigate those grifters who have been making Billions from All Californians’ Earnings/Savings/TaxDollars since 2008 — without even a yard of track laid & no end of the criminal fleecing in sight per Democrat Gov Gavin Newsom’s enabling negligence towards the obvious grift — & since there is ZERO chance #47 or the GOP Controlled Congress or G(LBTQX) Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent or Transportation Secretary Scott Duffy is going to grant California the critical Federal funding it needs to move forward this year & beyond ?

Such a resolution would give any LPSF candidates running in the midterms a big edge against any & all SF candidates enabling this grift with their silence & neglect.

LPSF Tuesday 4 March 2025 Letter fr California 3rd District US Rep Kevin Riley to FBI Director Kashyap Patel re CAHSRSCAM.pdf (2.1 MB)