I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
If you think about it, everything that comes after "initiation of force" is a question-begging qualifier. You might ask whether it's OK to initiate force to advance goals that are neither "political" nor "social" -- perhaps "economic" goals? For that matter, what do the Libertarians mean by "political" or "social?" We know that they don't believe in "social justice," while they seem to identify "politics" directly with the initiation of force, as an instrument people use to get by force what they can't earn otherwise. But unless libertarians are also anarchists -- unlikely on the assumption that anarchists still believe that "property is theft," while libertarians believe that politics is theft -- they must reject the state completely, since the making of law is an implicit initiation of force if you assume that the law will be enforced. As usual, libertarians make a show of renouncing the initiation of force, understood as direct physical harm to a person, while worrying far less about other forms of coercion that might be considered no more just. For a libertarian it's terrible to say, "Do it my way or I'll hurt you," but no problem, it often seems, if someone says, "Do it my way or starve." Wouldn't a pledge to oppose that sort of coercion be equally principled? I suppose the Libertarians imagine their pledge to be a succinct model of moral clarity, but as I've pointed out there are too many words for it to be other than an act of political obfuscation.