Tear Down This Platform!

By Kevin Bjornson

I and other members of the Libertarian Defense Caucus have expressed our concern with and opposition to some of the wording in planks 3.1 and 3.3. Our efforts have yielded nothing; our pleas for common sense appearto have fallen on deaf ears. LDC members would probably support adoption of the Pure Principles platform as a whole, on an up-or-down vote:provided that the individual planks would later be consideredone by one. That strategy does not appear to be the one contemplated by Brian and his reform allies. Therefore, without changes in the wording and/or strategy,I have no choice but to recommend LDCers vote against the foreign policy planks, and organize opposition to same at the convention and online. With "moderates" and "hawks"like these, we don't need appeaseniks. Apparently, the PurePrinciples proponents think there are more dove thanhawk votes. The tendency of the 5000+ responses to the platform committee questionaire indicates to me a sharp departure from the past, which the accomodators have not anticipated. I think we could vote down any foreign policy planks likely to be proposed, due to an underestimated backlash. In addition, plank 2.4 has a sentence that is political poison, even daft, and not required by libertarian principles. Again here is a summary:

3.1. National Defense: We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

Mr. Bjornson's Response: There is no evidence was cited to justify characterizing the whole of US policyas attempts "to act as policeman for the world". Would a professional historian like Victor Davis Hanson talk this way, and, in effect, disparage the heroism of US soldiers as they protect the American way of life?Instead, this should be offered:We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should not act as policeman for the world.We oppose any form of compulsory national service. This isn't really new language, but if you prefer, substitute this from the 1990 platform:"We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of dischargingarmed forces personnel for homosexual conduct". Or (from the 1975 platform): "The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments".

3.2. Internal Security and Individual Rights: The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

Mr. Bjornson's response: "The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war." How curious. Do you propose to abolish the Uniform Code of Military Justice?Active duty US soldiers do not have fourth amendment protection, for one thing. Also captured enemy soldiers and combatants are not covered by the Bill of Rights. I would have gone along with this hyperventilated wording, in exhange for modification of wording elsewhere. Alas, that appears to be off the table.

3.3. International Affairs "The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations. American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense — against attack from abroad — of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."

Mr. Bjornson's Response: "The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations." Check your dictionary: "intervention" simply means a third party enters a two-party dispute. This sentence would have prohibited the US from intervening--between Hitler and the Europeans he subjugated, or betweenthe Imperial Japanese military and the Philippines. What constitutes"affairs of other nations" is simply what they are concerned with.The platform should use standard English, not Rothbardese. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense — against attack from abroad — of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil". The effects of US military actions abroad cannot be limited to protecting Americans only while they are on US soil. This can be interpreted only aslimiting US military actions to US soil, not an easy sell in this post 9/11 world. How would you have the US military protect us from terrorists--with a soldier on every street corner, waiting for terrorists to strike--at a time and place oftheir choosing? Rather, we should attack terrorists in their centers ofpower, which are abroad. Further, Americans in US waters (within the 200 mile limit) and international waters would be unprotected. Americans would be afraid to use their yachts, and America's international trade would be severely hampered by pirates and terrorists. Libertarianism is not a suicide pact, and does not require we repudiate the example set by Thomas Jefferson when he quelled the Barbary Coast pirates. Tellingly, this platform does not prohibit extortion pay-offs to terrorists,which is what the US did prior to Jefferson's military actions. Why not instead: "the lives and liberty of Americans within U.S. jurisdiction or engaged in prudent international travel".

2.4. Money and Financial Markets:"We call for the abolition of all regulation of financial and capital markets."

Mr. Bjornson's Response: Even Rothbard didn't go that far. At least, his "agencies of retaliatoryand defensive force" would prohibit fraud. This sentence is a good exampleof crackpot lack of thinking and economic illiteracy. Can you imagine alibertarian candidate for president having to explain "abolition of allregulation of financial and capital markets" to a public incensed byyet another banking/financial crisis? You don't even bother to specify"government" regulation, apparently the financial industry isn't supposed to regulate itself through association and voluntary agreeement. This issheer moon-bat daftness. Are you trying to appeal to the Ron Paul/Willis Carto/The Spotlight/American Free Press crowd?

I say to classical libertarians, "Tear down this platform".

Kevin Bjornson is a Senior Co Chairman of The Libertarian Defense Caucus. This article will soon be featured in LP News.