Libertarian Defense Caucus National Co – Chairman, Mr. Kevin Bjornson, fired back at LP Executive Director Wes Benedict’s and LP National Chairman Mark Hinkle’s latest woefully misguided missive.
The rambling press release, although it should be noted that a press release has to in fact be covered by the press to be considered a press release, covered domestic and International affairs.
Mr. Bjornson eviscerated the juvenile proclamations asserted in the LP release with the following eloquent response.
The nearly incoherent original LP news release is incuded after Co- Chairman Bjornson’s response.
Dear fellow libertarians and other concerned persons,
Recently, those of us on the LP e-list received a press release
(appended below) which sets new records for bizarre language;
Benedict and Hinkle seem to have a suicide wish for the LP.
The “libertarian” proposal touted, is that the US pull the plug
on both our foreign friends and retired Americans.
The unstated assumptions are, only government can provide
retirement/medical benefits, and taxes are necessary to
wage war. This flies in the face of liberty theory as well as
If social security benefits were simply dropped with no
free enterprise replacement, the results would be catastrophic.
Millions of retired Americans would be placed in mortal jeopardy,
and whoever did that would be crucified at the polls. Millions of
old Americans would roam the streets, almost like a scene out of
“Night of the Living Dead”. Need I remind these masochistic
gentlemen, the LP is a political party and should be about
proposing solutions most Americans will accept, instead of
framing libertarianism in the worst possible light.
Fortunately there is a libertarian way out of this mess.
The US has vast tracts of land, which could be traded to
insurance companies in exchange for their assuming
Social Security and Medicare liabilities. Benedict and
Hinkle oppose Social Security but offer no positive
solution–other than what would amount to a holocaust
of elderly Americans who have paid into the system
for decades and have planned their retirement accordingly.
The Libertarian Defense Caucus has proposed ways that
US defense could be privatized, or at least financed without
taxation. The protection of property rights of merchant
ships and oil infrastructure should not be treated as a
welfare benefit, but as normal ways of financing the
business of providing government services.
Even if we accept the tax financing of defense,
there is no assurance that retreating to within US borders
would save money. Does anybody seriously propose that
one side in a war may unilaterally declare the conflict over,
without victory and with the enemy unvanquished?
Costs to the US would sky-rocket under military isolationism,
as our enemies would then be free to attack us on US soil,
at times and places of their choosing. We would be in a
defensive mode, forced to defend every possible target.
Jihadists would continue to use nationalized oil and prohibition
to finance their Jihad, safe from attack in their foreign sanctuaries.
If we simply retreat, they will not reciprocate, but will view
that as weakness, and accelerate their terrorist attacks.
If not stopped, sooner or later Jihadists will acquire nuclear weapons.
US infrastructure will be set back by 100 years, and Israel
(with whom we enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship)
will be toast.
Benedict and Hinkle make a mockery of libertarianism.
Fortunately their press releases are ignored. Where has
this latest press release been published? Who is still
listening? Thanks to Dondero and Cristiano, my responses
are likely getting more coverage on the internet than their
messages. We should present libertarianism in the best
possible light, and not go out of our way to alienate
people generally and dissenting libertarians. That much
should be obvious; sadly, the LP is in need of adult supervision.
Libertarian Defense Caucus.
WASHINGTON – With prospects of a Republican takeover of Congress, Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Mark Hinkle posed this question: “In order to balance the budget, where will the GOP pull the plug first: on Granny, or on foreign wars?”
Hinkle continued, “Of course, Republicans may have no serious intention of cutting federal deficits or spending, and their complaints about ‘out-of-control spending’ might be hypocrisy.”
Over 60% of federal spending is in three areas: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military. It would be impossible to eliminate the federal deficit without cutting entitlements or military spending, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tea Party leader Dick Armey recently called Social Security a ponzi scheme.
LP Executive Director Wes Benedict said, “Social Security is universal mandatory welfare for seniors. It’s very un-libertarian.”
Benedict continued, “I suppose one way to maintain the Social Security scheme would be to rapidly grow the U.S. working population, such as by opening up our borders to increase immigration. However, Republican congressmen have tried to duck their responsibility for the bad economy by scapegoating illegal immigrants, so allowing a massive influx of immigrants is politically infeasible in the near future.
“Each child born in the U.S. immediately faces a debt of over $40,000. Ironically, it might not be long before American youth start ditching this debt foisted on them by their parents and grandparents, and start leaving America in search of better opportunity abroad.
“To make Social Security solvent as our population ages, the federal government either has to raise the tax, or cut the benefits. The last significant change to Social Security was a tax increase approved by Ronald Reagan. Libertarians favor cutting Social Security benefits, and we oppose tax increases. Libertarians would prefer to allow workers to opt out of Social Security. Perhaps entitlements can be cut gradually, rather than slashed abruptly, but that depends on taking action sooner rather than later.
“On the October 17 ‘Fox News Sunday,’ I saw that Republican senate candidate Carly Fiorina was repeatedly asked what parts of entitlements she would cut to balance the budget, and she repeatedly dodged the question.”
The recent Republican ‘Pledge to America’ makes no mention of cutting entitlements or the military.
Benedict continued, “Republicans refuse to say where they would cut entitlement spending, and of course Republicans oppose cutting military spending or ending America’s foreign wars. Therefore, I’d say that Republicans are hypocrites who aren’t serious about solving the federal debt problem.”
A video lampooning John Boehner and the Republican ‘Pledge to America’ was created by Travis Irvine, Libertarian for U.S. Congress in Ohio District 12.
Benedict continued, “Only Libertarians recognize that we can’t have it all for much longer. The longer Republicans and Democrats flush money down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sooner the government will have to cut benefits for Granny. Of course, Congress may never have the courage to pass legislation to cut entitlements. In that scenario, Granny will eventually start experiencing ‘rolling blackouts,’ or perhaps a total system collapse.
“Libertarians stand ready to cut spending across the board. Perhaps the question Granny needs to answer is, ‘Which do you love more: your Social Security check, or foreign wars?'”
The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.