Libertarian Party National Platform Committee Update

It's been a little while since my last update, and simultaneously quite a bit has happened and not much has happened.

• Caryn Ann Harlos was elected permanent chair of the committee.
• Mimi Robson is in the middle of being elected secretary (the email ballot hasn't ended yet, but IIRC there's been one NOTA vote and a whole bunch of votes for her).
• The chair is in the process of moving the committee from old and busted Yahoo! Groups to a better email list which will have a public reflector.
• An email ballot is in process on a motion from the chair that "that all electronic and in-person meetings of the Committee will be open to all state and national Party members and may be recorded and broadcast through a streaming service." It looks set to pass.
• An email ballot is in process on a motion by myself to strike the final sentence of plank 3.4, Trade and Migration: "We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property."

There's also an email ballot on a physical meeting, and an announcement of an electronic meeting set for March 6, 6-8pm Mountain Time (I'll post details for those who want to watch it when it gets closer).

And there's a rules controversy over whether a member of the committee who is both his state's representative and first national alternate can squat on an entitlement to two votes and cast the one he finds most advantageous (Robert's says no). That will get hashed out.

There's quite a bit of talk on the abortion plank. I don't see it going anywhere, and I certainly don't see any change away from a pro-choice position (I will not support such a change).

Note that I didn't mention how the email ballot is going on the Trade and Migration amendment. I haven't counted lately, but I'm under the impression that it's failing. Not on its merits for the most part, but because several members of the committee have announced that they won't vote for any motions until and unless their asses are cradled in hotel conference room chairs. Oddly, several of them have both made supported motions by email ballot when serving on previous platform committees. Suffice it to say that it's more about a personality-centered factional divide on the committee than about anything ideological.

OK, I think I covered everything. Questions welcome.

The Exceptions That Prove the Stupidity of the Proposed Rule

Florida governor Rick Scott proposes to [PDF]:

Require all individuals purchasing firearms to be 21-years-old or over. Exceptions include active duty and reserve military and spouses, National Guard members, and law enforcement ...

Members of the military (including reserve and National Guard units) are not required to purchase the weapons they use on duty. Those weapons are issued by their units. Why should they, let alone their spouses, get a special exemption from this rule (especially given that, at least anecdotally, military veterans seem heavily represented in the ranks of mass shooters)?

And why should "law enforcement" get an exception for weapons other than those purchased expressly for carry while on duty?

Of course the entire idea is evil pandering to hysteria. But if you're going to go evil and pander to hysteria, why not take it all the way?

My counter-offer: Ban all employees of the government of the state of Florida and its political subdivisions (yes, including police) from owning or possessing any firearm at any time or for any reason, with immediate termination of employment and prospective jail time as penalties, then we'll talk.

Another Proposal to Ameliorate the Negative Effects of an Idea I Oppose

The Universal Basic Income craze doesn't seem to be blowing over as I had hoped it might. I keep seeing stories about small-scale experiments with the concept (in America, something of the sort is about to start in Stockton, California). The craze includes quite a bit of commentary from the nominally libertarian end of the political spectrum. Today, it's Ryan Bourne commenting at the Cato Institute regarding UBI's effects on employment.

But if such a scheme were to be implemented, I would say that one immediate consequence should be:

Repeal of the minimum wage.

After all, the idea of a Universal Basic Income is that it's a basic income, right? Anything above and beyond it is gravy, extra. And since it's universal (everyone gets it), there won't be anyone who can't afford to live while getting paid whatever deal he or she can drive with an employer instead of there being a government-mandated floor, right?

Now, just to be clear, I am not going to burn my libertarian purist card and support UBI, which I consider both evil and cockamamie. It's not some kind of "trade" I'm saying should be "offered." I'm just saying that if the one does happen, the other should be required to happen with it.