Libertarian Party

Libertarian Presidential Candidates Champion 'Open Borders'

In between Trump's restrictionism and Democrats' Medicare-for-all-undocumented enthusiasm lies a party basically unified behind mass immigration without welfare.

|

Donald Trump, the most anti-immigrant president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, is running against a Democratic presidential field that almost unanimously favors providing government-run health insurance to illegal immigrants. Surely there is some middle ground between Stephen Miller-style family separation and a massive expansion of the welfare state to millions living outside the law?

The Libertarian Party, still the country's number-three political grouping (however distantly), has a platform very copacetic toward immigrants, if not quite via state largesse.

"Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful," the party's immigration plank reads. "A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas….Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense."

Bottom line: "Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals. Our current immigration system is an embarrassment. People who would like to follow the legal procedures are unable to because these procedures are so complex and expensive and lengthy. If Americans want immigrants to enter through legal channels, we need to make those channels fair, reasonable, and accessible."

To a notable degree, the L.P.'s top 2020 presidential candidates are hewing to the party's radical-for-American-politics immigration platform.

"One of the proudest positions that we have in this party is our open-border plank," Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger, who won the party's non-binding presidential caucuses in Iowa and Minnesota this month, said during a California debate that I moderated Feb. 16. "I grew up on a farm on the Rio Grande. We hired illegal immigrants….Y'all know about the checkpoints. We got 'em over there. I've been stopped by the Border Patrol myself when I was in high school, 'Open up your trunk!' Warrantless searches onto our farm to bust our workers. It's a police state, and there's only one solution to it: Dismantle it all. People have a fundamental, God-given right to cross borders like human beings and not die of thirst and dehydration in the desert and on the back of 18-wheelers."

There were five other candidates on stage that night, and each said similar things.

Media entrepreneur and current fundraising leader Adam Kokesh, whose big campaign idea is signing an executive order on day one that dissolves the federal government, posited that "Government borders are not legitimate," and that "only private property borders" deserve respect. Kokesh then added: "And if being American means anything about standing up to unjust authority and employing civil disobedience, I would dare say most who come here illegally are more American than the average apathetic American today."

Performance artist and serial candidate Vermin Supreme, who won the party's only other early-state contest so far (New Hampshire), quipped that "You cannot outlaw people. If you outlaw people, only people will be outlaws."

Deep-pocketed race newcomer Mark Whitney, an ex-convict comedy enthusiast who founded THELAWNET, said of undocumented immigrants, "I not only want them to be citizens, I want them working on my campaign."

Academic and 1996 L.P. vice presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen complained that, "Right now, we've got a system in which we keep everybody out, except we just let a few people in. What we need to do is flip it and just let everybody in."

And bipartisan former Rhode Island governor and U.S. senator Lincoln Chafee stressed the political expediency of it all: "I see this as a political advantage that with our open-border policy and libertarian views on immigration, especially the fastest-growing voting bloc in the United States, the Hispanics, are going to have the opportunity in 2020 to look at our platform and come to our side."

Among the eight other presidential candidates who attended the California L.P. convention but didn't convince enough delegates to send them to the debate stage, only one, Phil Gray, even mentioned immigration during his allotted three-minute speech the night before, and that was in service to Gray's unusual idea of having undocumented workers pay down the country's $23 trillion debt.

Among the more than two dozen candidates currently vying for the Libertarian presidential nomination, you can find the occasional balking at open borders: New Hampshire state Rep. Max Abramson ("Go after companies that replace American workers and Green Card holders with illegal immigrants and stop enticing opportunists to come into the country illegally"), business consultant and recent party-switcher Blake Ashby ("I do not believe in an open border, or an open commitment to accept refugees"), pipe welder/fitter and outdoorsman Kenneth Blevins ("I fully support legal and vetted immigration"), FedEx Hawaiian Steven Richey ("owning property and sending remittances should be reserved for citizens"), "business owner, singer, minister, lover of people" Demetra Jefferson Wysinger ("entering our nation illegally is NOT immigration it is an invasion and a crime"), and "alchemist jedi" Jedidiah Hill ("Integrate the people into society have them learn English and put them to work").

But with the exception of Abramson, none of these candidates have made a noticeable splash during primary season, and even Abramson finished a desultory 14th in the primary balloting in his home state.

The bigger story is the story that isn't there. Which is to say, while immigration politics tends to at least somewhat divide all political blocs, including both libertarians and Libertarians, that particular dog is just not hunting in this principle-driven L.P. presidential cycle.

A key figure in that development is Jacob Hornberger, who is not only the most well-known libertarian intellectual running, but also has the backing of the party's growing Mises Caucus, which adheres to the Austrian school of economics and affiliates positively with members of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. (LvMI Senior Fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods sits on the Mises Caucus's advisory board, and has endorsed Hornberger, as has comic Dave Smith.)

Leadership figures in the Libertarian Party and Mises Institute have been sniping periodically at one another since 2017, in part over the perceived politically correct "identity politics" in the L.P. versus the perceived politically incorrect "blood and soil" enthusiasms at LvMI. (Read my account of their clash at the 2018 Libertarian National Convention.) Some Libertarians never tire of pointing out LvMI's hospitality toward nationalists like Hans-Hermann Hoppe; the Misesites, in turn, rarely miss an opportunity to mock L.P. National types for "virtue signaling."

Yet both sides have stayed in the same party tent, with Woods and Smith, in particular, helping whip up new recruits on their podcasts. And in Hornberger, a longtime friend of Ron Paul, the Mises enthusiasts have someone who is both unimpeachably anti-war (the issue that, along with ending the Federal Reserve, the Austrians elevate above all) and unapologetically open borders. No blood and soil on this Texan's watch.

At the Massachusetts state Libertarian convention last July, months before he jumped into the race, Hornberger gave a fire-and-brimstone defense of open immigration as essential to a free society.

"One of the most glorious, honorable positions that this party has ever taken is open borders," he said. "Oh I know, Libertarians will say 'Oh my God, this is an albatross, Jacob! This is a liability! This is costing votes! We need to join up with Republicans and Democrats on this issue!' Perish the thought. There are people dying in the American Southwest in deserts from dehydration and thirst. They're dying crossing the Rio Grande, including children. They're dying in the back of 18-wheelers. They're having children taken away from their families. You have a police state all along the border in the Southwest, and in Texas. There is no way to reconcile all of this police-state action and death and suffering—and for Libertarians to ever align themselves would be a moral abomination."

Part of what makes Hornberger's immigration message saleable to Libertarians is that he couples it with obliterating, not expanding, the welfare state.

"We live in a society that is based on massive mandatory charity," he said in Massachusetts. "With the crown jewels of this system being Social Security and Medicare, along with a host of others. There is no way to reconcile a genuinely free society with mandatory charity. No way at all. Because people have a natural, God-given right to keep everything they earn, and decide for themselves what to do with it….And so if we are going to achieve a free society it necessarily presupposes a dismantling of infringements on liberty, and that includes Social Security and Medicare. You have to repeal, abolish, dismantle infringements on liberty in order to achieve the free society."

The L.P. presidential race, which will be settled at the national convention in Austin, Texas, May 21-25, has so far been a battle to see who can best represent the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party. As such it is striking, in this moment of major-party polarization and deep immigration-policy divides, to see a principled Libertarian immigration message emerging: Mr. Trump, tear down this wall.

You can watch the whole California Libertarian presidential debate below; the immigration stuff starts at 27:45:

NEXT: Gender-Neutral U.S. Passports Could Be Coming Soon

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We all have dreams. The question is what is their priority? If they can only have one, which one will they take? No welfare or open borders. I am going to go out on a limb here and say they all will happily take open borders without any concern for getting rid of the welfare if it was available.

    1. I would have to presume there are a couple prerequisites to their open-borders plan, such as a radical reduction in transfer payments to everyone.

      I’m sure they wouldn’t want to mix open borders with open-public-treasury, that would be nuts.

      1. At least one of the LP candidates directly links to the Libertarian Radical Caucus, which contains the following ‘Key Point:’

        No Particular Order – The removal of one harmful government policy should never be held hostage for the removal of another, as this throws self-imposed barriers in the path of liberty and removes potential pressures for change. For example, saying that borders may be opened only after welfare is eliminated is unacceptable; the proper position is to push for both changes. Should we succeed in achieving open borders only to find that welfare burdens are increased, this should be used as an additional argument to abolish welfare.

        1. Couldn’t agree more. What a breath of fresh air over the partisan R’s and D’s bickering over immigrants for their own political gain.

          1. I have more mixed feelings, myself, but in general I’m opposed to the “we can’t have this until we have that” stance, as it tends to block change at every turn.

            1. Open borders without entitlement reform is a direct path to ruin.

              1. Reform entitlements all you like. Reform them to whatever Libertopian ideal you have.

                How do you expect them to *remain* the Libertopian ideal with unlimited migration of statist voters intent on statist governance?

                1. I don’t recall saying I did.

              2. Open borders is a direct path to ruin.

                FIFY

                1. Not really.

                2. Lefties and anarchists want to destroy the libertarian name by advocating for open borders when libertarians are fine with tiny and limited government protecting a nations borders for the common defense.

                  1. They did the same thing by stealing the term Liberal from Americans like the founding fathers.

              3. Open borders without entitlement reform is a direct path to ruin.

                On one hand, this is of a piece with the argument that cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsible, therefore we can’t cut taxes until we cut spending.

                It’s “things we need to do first” all the way down.

                On the other hand, I think it is arguably a unique situation in that it’s not just a spending problem – it’s also creating an incentive for people to come here for something other than our culture of rugged independence. A beacon for the least desirable immigrants, if you will.

                I’ve heard and can sympathize with the argument in regard to both taxes/spending and immigrants/entitlement that you’re not going to get movement on either of the latter terms until you get the crises that will come from cutting taxes/opening borders.

                But to me the risk of opening the borders under current entitlements is significantly greater than cutting taxes under our current spending regime (attracting a bunch of welfare recipients only to cut them off probably isn’t the hottest plan), so . . . mixed feelings (but generally leaning against ‘open borders’).

                1. That’s basically my position as well. There is a unique incentive, as you stated, that skews the calculus.

                2. One problem with your analogy. Cutting taxes still had a greater revenue stream the next year. Even keeping spending static would have caused a reduction of the deficit. No need to cut spending actually existed.

                3. There’s no reason at all to import poverty, which is what open borders without eliminating the welfare state will encourage. “Come to America for the free stuff!”

              4. Ruin for most of us.
                From the article-” the fastest-growing voting bloc in the United States”
                So open borders is seen as a pathway to electoral success. That is normally thought of as a democratic party strategy. These are people who want to rule, even if their strategy for getting that power results in our destruction.
                Open borders could easily mean 100 million immigrants, just from Central and South America. Many times that number would come from other parts of the world, if they could get here.
                Meanwhile, there are already tent cities of the unemployed and unhoused in may urban areas.

            2. Reforming welfare without changing current immigration laws does not cause more harm.

              Changing immigration to allow for an influx of unskilled workers without changing current welfare laws does cause more harm.

              There is a literal reason why some of us put conditions in one direction and not the other.

            3. “in general I’m opposed to the “we can’t have this until we have that” stance”

              It depends on the definitions of “this” and “that.”

              What if someone said – and in fact at one point something similar *did* happen – “let’s relax regulations on lenders because libertarianism but continue to promise them bailouts if they make bad loans”? That would be worse than the status quo. If banks are to be deregulated, then they and their depositors should pay the costs of bad investments.* The “we’ll fix this other part later” attitude could mean a bad situation gets worse.

              *I actually believe in means-tested aid for citizens reduced to actual pauperism by bank failures. The promise of a basic safety net is hardly the thing to encourage reckless investment.

        2. “the proper position is to push for both changes.”

          And a pony.

          It’s so cool how that completely dodged John’s question tho.

          1. A sparkly unicorn pony.

        3. “We are in favor of violating the rights of Americans with ever increasing statism through mass immigration of people from relatively statist societies. Muh liberty!”

          They are the flip side of the Bernie Bro #FreeStuff crowd. Totally disconnected from reality. Ignoring the consequences of implementing their deontological feels.

          People “should have” whatever they need, hence #FreeStuff! When you’ve eaten all the rich, how are you going to pay for your free stuff?
          “La la la la la, I can’t hear you!”

          People “should have” the right to travel freely across the world. When people from relatively statist and impoverished cultures move to the US, will they not vote for increased welfare spending and statism?
          “La la la la la, I can’t hear you!”

          1. I’m not as afraid of impoverished people as the principle that we don’t have the right to control access to our property. Yes, ‘public’ property is owned by all citizens and managed by our representatives.

            1. That’s why I said “not really” to your correction. There exists a (theoretical) framework where property rights are robust, and borders are essentially open, but with strictly limited privileges for guests and resident workers.

              Open borders, while often used that way, is NOT synonymous with “make the entire world a citizen with voting rights”

        4. For example, saying that borders may be opened only after welfare is eliminated is unacceptable;

          The LP isn’t proposing to “open borders”; “open borders” would mean that people can pass freely in both directions.

          1. Wavy Gravy Boothead was the only one present, including Matt, who had read a single plank of the party platform. It was the plank to import terrorists and pandemic carriers without inspection. Every platform change AFTER our 4 million plus votes record was designed to alienate voters and make us look like… like… those idiot wannabee candidates!

        5. That’s fantastic. Fully agree.

      2. “I’m sure they wouldn’t want to mix open borders with open-public-treasury, that would be nuts.”

        Honestly, if the only two choices were a Trumpian status quo and full open borders/full welfare safety net, I think they’d take Door Number 2. They’d whine about the continued presence of welfare, but not as much whining as they currently do about US immigration.

        Which is crazy, but there you are.

        1. And I see Square just proved it.

          1. Reading with an open mind is tough, I know.

            Should we succeed in achieving open borders only to find that welfare burdens are increased, this should be used as an additional argument to abolish welfare

            1. So, we’ll bitch about welfare still being there, but still want the open borders anyway. Got it. I believe that would be Door Number 2.

              I shouldn’t be surprised. Ineffectual bitching is what Libertarians do, after all.

              The deepest irony in all of this is that the people who will most take advantage of the LP’s open borders stance are, according to every political attitude survey I’ve ever seen, the same people most hostile to libertarianism. Libertarians are tolerated, if usually mocked, by both major parties in the US.

              Show me the hotbed of libertarianism anywhere else in the world. Hong Kong was about the closest, and that only as a hothouse flower colony of UK culture and administration. Everywhere else? Marginalized if not killed as enemies of the people. The people who would come are not going to change their minds their feet stepped on American soil.

              1. I have to wonder why we keep pretending, quite dishonestly, that immigration is of the same import as welfare/spending reform?

                The reality is, objectively, the two don’t belong in the same league as each other

                1. Why do you say that? Both are infringements on the freedom of people by government.

                  I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative making that claim. I’m sure a liberal would make the opposite claim. But a libertarian that values both social and fiscal freedom should accept that they’re both infringements on individual rights and are anathema to liberty.

            2. “When the mass immigration we impose on America leads to increasing statism imposed on Americans by statist immigrants, we’ll argue harder!”

            3. Leo, you sound like obama and healthcare… you want make things worse to generate more opposition. It is a bad philosophy.

            4. This implies an “if” regarding whether or not welfare is a burden. It is. We know it is. Not only is it a burden, it’s anti-libertarian. And we know with almost certainty that the burden would increase, thus decreasing the liberty of every taxpayer. If we closed the borders until we eliminated welfare, would that affect as many people as increasing the welfare burden? Almost certainly not.

              That entire argument is idiotic. In line with the NAP, their first priority should be to AT LEAST not increase violations of people’s property rights. Opening the borders before eliminating welfare increases the number of people whose rights are violated and hands the government more money to siphon off into their pet projects. Closing the border, while not entirely desirable, affects fewer people and doesn’t take from some to give to others.

    2. What’s your dream, John? Besides burying your face in some fat titties, that is.

      1. Seems like a much better dream than what you’re offering, bankruptcy and ruin.

        1. Libertarians for full on authoritarianism so we can talk harder about liberty!

      2. “Besides burying your face in some fat titties, that is.”

        Yea that would be like so gay.

    3. “behind mass immigration without welfare”

      United in irrelevant political LARPing.

      1) When do they expect Americans to be opposed to welfare?
      2) Are they opposed to the *corporate* welfare of corporate limited liability, differential tax treatment between corporations and individuals, government enforced intellectual monopoly, and government enforced violation of the Lockean proviso?
      2) *If* the US actually ended welfare, how do they plan on preventing the mass immigration of people who *do* want welfare from bringing welfare back when they are given the vote?

      1. “Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful,”

        Are statists “peaceful”? Are the violations of rights they support and vote for “peaceful”?

        If not, does the Libertarian Party plan on preventing people who believe in violation of rights by Libertarian Party standards from immigrating to the US?

        If so, how?

        If not, their platform to allow mass immigration of statists intent on violating the rights of Americans, by Libertarian Party standards, is an open criminal conspiracy to violate the rights of Americans.

        1. Is it peaceful when people come here from other legal jurisdictions and then ask /demand the government to “tax” your resources so that THEY can have them? Because it doesn’t sound peaceful when a mugger is holding a gun and another guy is pointing the muggers hand holding that gun at you…

          1. By libertarian standards, most people in the world are *not* peaceful. They will impose statist violence on you if you give them the opportunity.

    4. Given the world we live in, open borders is a non starter for any sane person that cares about this country.

      1. “person that cares about this country”

        The people who want Open Borders hate the US.

        They rail against the US for its immigration policies, while the US has the largest foreign born population in the world by multiples.

    5. I think they may be running for office on another planet. One where every immigrant child, legal or illegal, enrolled in public schools by a federal mandate, costs taxpayers $10,000-$30,000 annually. And those children are 26% of those enrolled.

    6. In the past two elections, I voted Libertarian.
      In November, I will NOT.

      This “open borders” nonsense is the main reason why.
      I’ll also be changing my party affiliation.

      Goodbye Libertarians!

    7. I’ve been voting libertarian for two score years. Open borders, without welfare.

      Welfare has to go FIRST. Gone. Shut down.

      It won’t happen, so we have to just run and govern (if we ever do) with a hand on the helm with open borders without welfare as a goal. It’s an empty slogan, folks.

  2. …if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense.

    BREAKING NEWS: Libertarian Party Comes Out for the Surveillance State

    1. “credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, ”

      Are statists not “violent”? Are those in favor of violating the rights of Americans through government, by Libertarian Party standards, “violent”?

      An honest, consistent, and accurate evaluation of an immigrant’s support for state violence by Libertarian Party standards would *disqualify* 99.9999% of the world from immigrating to the US.

  3. Why is Reason covering the libritarian candidate? Libritarian are all free market clingers who are absoulty against their woke betters cramming the culture war down their necks. Their hedious ideology is no place for Reason.

    1. Hey hey ho ho free market racist sexist anti ho!

  4. Thanks, Matt, for writing this up. It’s nice to read about libertarians once in awhile.

    One quibble, your overall presentation theme of the LP candidates probably couldn’t be more effective in getting a large share of the commentariat here to vote Republican.

    Personally, immigration isn’t a priority issue one way or the other for me. I think I’m part of a small minority in that aspect.

    1. It’s important to me except for the part where I don’t know what to think about it. I mean, open borders in current circumstances would be crazy, but being more restrictionist could mean a surveillance society.

      My guess is they’ll compromise by having open borders *and* a surveillance society.

      1. My guess is that they won’t have to worry about compromising because none of them will ever even sniff the possibility of having an outside chance of maybe someday possibly attaining any position of political authority.

        Since I’m choosing to “throw my vote away” for an idealistic dream, I’ll go ahead and pull the lever for fewer restrictions AND less surveillance AND less wealth redistribution.

      2. If you want to live in a place like Lagos or San Salvador, it is better to just move there. If you find it not to your taste, you could always move back.

        Anyone who wants to build a utopian society would be well advised to build it somewhere else, for that exact reason. When it fails, you can come home, sit in a nice coffee shop, and figure out why it went wrong.

    2. Add me to that. Immigration smacks of the worst of LP practices – ie let’s talk about grand kumbaya things that link all humans together while we sing how much we’d like to buy everyone a Coca-Cola. Fuhgeddabout being an actual political party running for office in the US to actually achieve something. The WORLD is our target to evangelize.

      No different really than the Wilsonians and neocons with their ideas about global war for human rights, democracy, capitalism, etc.

  5. I’m hoping Vermin Supreme (pronounced Boot head head) makes it to the top. Perfect candidate for extolling the virtues of open borders.

    1. ‘Vermin Supreme… quipped that “You cannot outlaw people. If you outlaw people, only people will be outlaws.”‘
      (From the article).

      Well, yes! That actually does sound correct! Or, wait… Or are we going to prosecute plants and animals that violate laws? Plants and animals (non-people) can then be outlawed… Will they have a right to be tried by a jury of their peers? We have cases of “The State v/s Your Property” right now… If “Your Property” is a plant or animal or a rock, it does NOT get to be tried by a jury of their peers! So Vermin Supreme, on second thought, is technically wrong. BUT… Vermin Supreme IS correct at the bigger-picture level, pointing out that we have gotten VERY FAR off of the bases of the freedoms-loving Founding Fathers!

      1. You have shit in your teeth Old Mex.

    2. Why wasn’t Vermin wearing his boot?

    3. PS, Vermin Supreme kinda butchered it; there are better ways of saying it. To wit, “When humans are outlawed, only outlaws will be human.” Human == humane, to a large degree. When the “scapegoat the illegal sub-humans” party gets to NAZI-like levels… We’re not there yet, but I see the dangers thereof… Then the humane (ethical, moral) people will have to oppose the laws! Decent Germans hid Jews… We will have to start hiding the illegal sub-humans from the Orange Hitler, if we have a conscience!

      There are middle grounds to be had… Bring back the “Bracero” program, for example. But Orange Hitler (and supporters) are too busy making political hay off of the hatred of illegal sub-humans, so there will be NO serious discussions of any middle ground!

      1. Do you see the irony of criticizing Trump for demagoguing for political purposes by demagoguing him and his supporters with questionable assertions as to their stance?

        1. So then start supporting the resurrection of Bracero and of non-“Big Beautiful Wall”-type solutions… I find you to be a MUCH more reasonable more-border-control-type person than a lot of the troglodytes around here!

          Here is a MUCH over-looked, non-extremist partial solution to border control, which entirely TOO many Trump supporters will NOT support! They are looking for SYMBOLS (especially of tribal affiliations), not solutions! There’s been any number of Reason.com reports by now, how, on a practical level, the conventional “wall” approach, does NOT work!

          The walls are not a cost-effective measure at ALL… They are political show-pieces. If we wanted cost-effective, we’d do this:
          http://www.businessinsider.com/fiber-optic-sensing-technology-vs-border-wall-2019-2
          A simple technology could secure the US-Mexico border for a fraction of the cost of a wall — but no one’s talking about it
          But Trump is obsessed about what LOOKS intimidating… Walls (old tech thousands of years old) and barbed wire (dating from the late 1800s). He wants his (and I quote) “Big, beautiful wall”. And the psychology (hate the other tribe or troop) dates back to apes and monkeys. To hell with effective; it is all a political show. And since we are racists, we do NOT bother with the political theater with respect to the Cannucks.
          Once again, if we’d want effective, we’d go fiber-optic sensors. Leaves the wildlife alone as well…. But NOOOO, Trump and the troglodytes want highly visible political theater!

          1. To many of those who have been complaining about lax enforcement for decades, and who remember 1986, the wall is symbolic that this time the government isn’t lying.

  6. There is more to politics than muh GDP and muh freedom. Open borders effectively means any other country can invade and control us through our own democratic institutions.
    Crazy articles like this are why the “economic rightist, social moderate” bloc won’t ever swing Libertarian.

    1. “Open borders effectively means …”

      The consequences of policies are irrelevant to deontological loons. They blank them out, or say “not my fault”. Either way, they *feel* justified as they destroy America, and their feelings of justification are all that matter to them.

      Deontologists unchecked by consequentialism are the moral free riders of politics. They get to feel self righteous with their deontological feels while they’re protected from the catastrophic consequences of implementing their policies by the consequentialists who prevent them from implementing their policies.

      1. Yeah. These people are dangerously delusional, and mostly just downright stupid.

  7. In between Trump’s restrictionism and Democrats’ Medicare-for-all-undocumented enthusiasm lies a party basically unified behind mass immigration without welfare.

    Other than the fact that literally every Libertarian Party candidate vocally supports welfare for illegal aliens. Jesus Christ dude, what even is the fucking point of telling lies so absolutely goddamn blatant that they can be dispelled with 3 seconds of googling?

    Other than TANF, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and social services, NO WELFARE!

    1. Well, Gary Johnson was a bit whack.

      Here’s a better take on sensible Libertarian views of this… Cato…
      https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myths-facts-immigration-policy

      1. Ahh yes… pro gun-control, pro-carbon tax, pro-VAT, Koch-bought Cato. Thanks, but I’ll just wait until they push the executive summaries to the sub 50 IQ peons at Reason who copy and paste it for the edification of shit-eating mentally ill lonely old piece of shit welfare leeches like you, Mikey.

        1. By the way, as long as we’re going to just regurgitate talking points from propaganda outlets, here you go.

          Now go shit in your hand and rub it all over the walls until one of the orderlies comes in and beats the fuck out of you again you decrepit useless old subhuman piece of shit.

    2. Gary Johnson is not running, dude. But keep flogging that straw horse with your flaccid member.

      1. It doesn’t really matter who is running since those are Libertarian Party platform planks. But it’s nice to know you think so much about my cock while you’re mixing metaphors you batty boy faggot.

        1. I hope you come to terms with your sexuality eventually and come out proud and strong. Be brave!

          1. Uh, you hit on him bro.

            1. You are seriously obsessed with me, Tulpa. It’s unhealthy. Not that you are a healthy individual.

              [sets phasers on ignore]

          2. Poor Chip, always aspiring to be a top, always ending up as the bottom.

    3. You forgot schools, and the use of all public infrastructure.

  8. Open borders is the fundamental, non-negotiable principle for all serious libertarians. But since Libertarian Party candidates have no chance of winning the White House, and since the Democrats are rapidly embracing open borders anyway, I don’t see the point in throwing my vote away on a third party.

    #ImmigrationAboveAll
    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders

    1. “Open borders is the fundamental, non-negotiable principle for all serious libertarians.”

      Really. I thought it was free markets and individual liberties. I thought it was about reigning in the nanny state, exactly like R’s and D’s don’t.

      So, Open Borders, so the world’s worst elements can come and go freely? So people who fucked up their own countries can come here and fuck ours up?

      No, I’ve been following the Libertarian party for decades and this open borders shit is recent. Even louder after Trump was elected. Just because Republicans won’t cozy up to Libertarians doesn’t mean Libertarians need to start adopting far left liberal shit to try and cozy up to the Democrats.

      Better immigration than what we have, sure. Open borders? You have to be as moronic as someone who thinks “Socialism will work this time” to believe open borders is a good idea in any way shape or form.

      The Libertarian party needs to rectify this, or it will find itself even more in the weeds than it is.

    2. DRINK!

  9. Beautiful. My kind of people.

    1. Unbelievably stupid liars? Yeah, I could see that.

      1. Why are you here? Is it because The_Donald got quarantined? My condolences.

        1. To make you cry and laugh at you.

          And it’s working.

  10. “they all will happily take open borders without any concern for getting rid of the welfare if it was available.”
    No, they will demand both – no compromise. That’s why their name should be changed to Quixotic Libertarian Party.
    If the LP wants to be a dreamy philosophical debating society, then do it. If it wants to be a political party, then do that. Calling for open borders, and eliminating social security now, is not going to get very many voters to even consider the LP’s ideas. It takes many years, generations even, for a society to accept radical ideas.
    The American Revolution didn’t spring into being because Sam Adams, Tom Paine or Patrick Henry changed a million minds all at once. The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution took generations of patient groundwork. Tell us what a libertarian society would look like, along with the practical steps to start realizing it.

    1. No, they will demand both – no compromise.

      No, they absolutely will not. Nick Gillespie has repeatedly come out and said that we need a government-provided social safety net, and yet has never once suggested adopting any restriction on immigration, including screening for infectious diseases. Libertarians are mentally ill.

      1. I was describing the inability of the LP to be pragmatic; Nick Gillespie certainly is but I’m not aware that he is a leader in the LP.

  11. HEATON!!!

    Glad I decided to click on the video.

    1. If you support keeping people out, Jo matter what for, and being able to report people it isn’t open borders. It is just less border enforcement but will still require some form of border enforcement. So stop with the open border bullshit.

      1. If this is meant as criticism for the venerable Andrew Heaton, I won’t stand for it, sir.

        1. No it was meant as a stand alone comment, but fucking Reason squirrels you know.

          1. I figured.

            FWIW, I agree with your comment. Open-borders is a misnomer; a counter-productive one at that.

            1. Yes. My analogy for a good compromise would be a strong fence (doesn’t have to be literal) with big gates that aren’t locked.

        2. Heaton needs a trim. And a haircut.

      2. Basically the LP platform is liberal (classical) border enforcement, e.g. there will be need for some control (checking to make sure we keep the violent criminals out) while making it easy for everyone else to cross. That isn’t to far from what many conservatives want. The biggest difference is the want to make it easier only after we secure the border. I don’t see how any of them can enforce the idea of keeping criminals out (official platform) and kicking violent criminals out (official platform) without an enforcement mechanism. This is pure disingenuous linguistics. They aren’t proposing open borders, but easier to cross borders but still maintaining some control.

        1. I’m not sure about what conservatives want, but Trump seems to want to means test immigration. That doesn’t sound like making it easy to come here.

          Restricting law abiding citizens from coming here is counter productive to securing the border. If you force everyone to a black market then you overwhelm the system of enforcement to the point it is less effective. Make work visas unlimited and easily obtained with criminal background checks and border enforcement for actual criminals becomes much easier.

          1. Many Republicans have offered similar plans and even Trump has said he is open to making immigration easier once the border is enforced and finding a humane compromise to dealing with those already here illegally. But like with anything with him, the more the other side pushes, the harder he pushes back and he loves hyperbole. No, he isn’t classically liberal but he would make a deal for a secure border that is better then what we have now.

            1. Securing the border seems to be one of those moving goalposts all the time. It’s never secure enough. Just like the war on terror can never be totally won. And as I’ve argued above, the border will never be secure as long as we restrict the movement of people who just want a better life for their family.

              It’s kind of like winning the war on drugs. It will never happen because the demand for drugs is too high. So too is the demand for labor and the risk people are willing to take to improve their lives.

              Governments, no matter how hard they try can’t totally curb human behavior. They should focus their finite resources on the real crimes against individual rights and not made up crimes with no actual victims.

              1. When 100,000s a year cross the border illegally and how many more overstay their visas, you can hardly label the border secure. Even under the most liberal of border enforcement you still need some form of enforcement. You still need some form of a secure border

                1. But of the 100,000 or so border crossers, how many are really a threat?

                  I don’t know how to impress my position on you any differently. The 100,000 ARE a problem. Because when there are 100,000 it’s tough to catch the 5 that you’re worried about. But when you pre-screen the 100,000 and give 99,995 work visas so they can cross and work here, don’t you think finding the 5 criminals who you care about might be easier? Finding a needle isn’t as hard once the haystack is cleared.

                  Declaring that 100,000 border crossers is a threat to security and we’re going to clear that up by catching them and sending them back is delusional. They obviously are willing to risk that to come here in the first place. They’ll just come back like they already have probably numerous times.

                  We keep pushing the same policies with respect to the border hoping for a different result. Build a wall and then what? Now we can’t have immigration because people overstay visas. Neither side really wants to solve the issue. They want to demagogue it. I’m certain that Obama preferred his executive DACA solution because he knew the party could demagogue it when the Republican inevitably reversed it.

                  1. I am agnostic on the wall. I understand why people are for it, it’s symbolic that the government is finally taking it seriously. A wall, even if they can climb it does create another barrier, which means patrols can be more effective. It is the same as base security, wire and other obstacles can slow but not stop the enemy, but they are a force multiplier. It slows their progress so troops can be more effective. As for overstaying their visas, a zero tolerance rule with an easier renewal process is probably the best way to go about it. And better record keeping. We have limited resources so, yes let’s focus on those who are truly scofflaws. But in order to do that we need to first have better control of the overall situation.

  12. Mandatory charity develops because voluntary charity fails to meet the needs. I have never met a voluntary charity that did not ask me to give more or said they have all the money they need. It is worth noting that many of the voluntary charities rely of government money to supplement private money. Think of the situation where tomorrow the Federal government ended all medical and food assistance to the poor and then on Sunday your minister asks you to increase your tithing from 10% to 25% to assist the poor.

    1. I have never met a voluntary charity that did not ask me to give more or said they have all the money they need.

      What about governments you’ve met? You know – the guys who can take your money whether you volunteer or not?

    2. “Mandatory charity develops because voluntary charity fails to meet the needs. I have never met a voluntary charity that did not ask me to give more or said they have all the money they need.”

      It’s like you’re teeing up the following quote on purpose.

      “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” -Thomas Sowell

  13. Is my favorite Libertarian Party Candidate Sorinne Ardeleanu?

    Maybe. May be.

    1. Her policies seem decently pragmatic enough. And consistent with a Constitutional approach.

      1. You need to watch her video.

  14. lies a party basically unified behind mass immigration without welfare.

    And this miracle of science will be achieved…how exactly?

    1. “How?” is a question for those who care about reality, not just their feelings of self-righteousness.

  15. If a migrant presents him/her self at a legal border crossing, supplies information as to who they are and what their intentions are, is not sick with a disease or a criminal, they should be able to enter the country. If after some time, they pass a citizenship test and declare any previous citizenship with a foreign company as null and void, then they can become an American citizen. If they sneak into the country, are unwilling to share information about themselves, to have committed serious crimes her or elsewhere, they should not be admitted. I’d like open borders, no welfare but that is impossible and impractical now. We need to take serious positions for we’ll look like older AOCs.

    1. What you described is actually the party platform. They just are playing tricks with wording by calling it open borders. And some commenters on here use the same disingenuous trick. They aren’t describing open borders but classical liberal immigration policy. Few outside the anarchist are for truly open borders. It is mainly an argument about how much enforcement is needed and how we enforce it.

      1. Thanks! I had not read the platform.

        1. No one else has either, or any other platform.

          1. I cite the party platforms sometimes when discussing RINOs and LINOs.

            Unreason hates their lies being undermined. The staff want to fuck up Libertarianism with their narratives of lies while saying they are Supporters of the LP or Libertarians (which are not the same thing).

    2. then they can become an American citizen

      And why would they possibly want to do that? US citizenship comes with serious obligations, like worldwide taxation and being subjected to the US justice system.

      People who just enter the country illegally or freely under your scheme can take advantage of the benefits US residency has to offer, but when it becomes inconvenient, they can simply leave again and the US has no jurisdiction over them.

      Unilaterally opening our borders to non-Americans is a rip-off for American citizens. If that kind of foolishness became US law, I’d give up my US citizenship in a heartbeat.

    3. “what their intentions are”

      If their *political* intentions are statist, what then? 99.9999% of the world believes in statist violation of rights, *by Libertarian Party standards*.

      Will the Libertarian Party turn those people away at the border?

      1. Libertarians would turn immigrants away.

        We Libertarians are having trouble keeping non-libertarians from fucking up the name Libertarian.

        Lefties did the same thing to destroy the term Liberal as in what the Founding fathers were.

  16. Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense.”

    While I agree with the general sentiment of the libertarian party on this subject, the above is the opposite of Open Borders.

  17. And little different then the Republicans and Democrats they pretend to decide, they are just as dishonest in portrayal of the other parties stance on immigration and just as disingenuous on how they describe their policy.

  18. perceived politically incorrect “blood and soil” enthusiasms at LvMI . (Read my account of their clash at the 2018 Libertarian National Convention.)

    In your account you dishonestly referred to it as a ‘pro-nationalism speech’

    Anyone who reads that speech and thinks that Jeff Deist is a ‘nationalist’ or some kind of secret Nazi because those three words appear in order is either illiterate, or being intentionally dishonest. Its the sort of thing you expect out of screeching SJWs.

    J.D. is saying we need to remember that people, in the context of the article that primarily means non-libertarians, see their family, friends, and neighbors (blood) and their home, property, community perhaps even their nation (soil) as something worth fighting to protect, and that if we want to spread the Libertarian idea of self-determination we cannot do so without recognizing that fact.

    1. Excuse me, individual… a group of… individuals are rolling over our… social construct and are demanding the surrender of all the… individuals on this side of the social construct.

      *finger snap applause*

      Sounds like a personal problem to me… Mr. Individual.

    2. Someone should have told the Poles that it was very unlibertarian of them to want to keep their language and culture. Germans and Russians have a human right to cross their border.

      1. “Germans and Russians have a human right to cross their border.”

        Yes. And they have no right to steal or murder.

        Do you think they objected to a mass migration or to the violations of NAP?

    3. That previous comment should really read protect their language and culture as supposed to keep their language and culture. Would it kill these guys to add an edit function?

    4. Yeah the hit against Deist and Hoppe is laughable. J.D. it just showing his true SWJ colors. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said America is really not an individual society but a familial/community based society, thats what Deist was getting at.

      1. M.W. not J.D.

  19. “One of the proudest positions that we have in this party is our open-border plank,” Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger, who won the party’s non-binding presidential caucuses in Iowa and Minnesota this month, said during a California debate that I moderated Feb. 16. “I grew up on a farm on the Rio Grande. We hired illegal immigrants….

    Because the old planks of de-regulation, limited government and rollback of the welfare state are totes 1990s and out of fashion.

    1. “I grew up on a farm on the Rio Grande. We hired illegal immigrants”
      i.e.
      “We were criminals.”

      #LockHimUp

      8 U.S. Code § – 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a
      (2) Continuing employment
      It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

  20. I was reading a piece about Bernie Sanders written long ago when he was running for re-election as mayor of Burlington. They mentioned that he had run for office several times before on whatever socialist party ticket it was he was representing, spouting the usual crazy Marxist philosophy and getting few votes. So how did this lunatic get to be mayor?

    Well, because Bernie took the election seriously because the incumbent mayor was a corrupt incompetent moron nobody liked and Bernie saw his opportunity. He realized that if he wanted to represent “the people” he’d better get an idea of what they wanted and all he knew was his crazy Marxist philosophy bullshit, he had no idea at all what the voters wanted. So he started going door-to-door asking people what they wanted out of their government, and he actually listened. And he wound up winning the election by 10 votes.

    Notice Bernie Sanders isn’t making immigration one of his top campaign issues. Immigration makes for good “Outrage!” political theater bullshit, but I don’t think most people really care. If the LP really wants to get somewhere with the electorate, quit preaching the hallelujah gospel and go feed some homeless people. People don’t give a shit about your philosophy, they want to see acts.

    1. “they want to see acts.”

      Sanders could do with a better wardrobe. I suggest a tunic in the style of Alexander Kerensky. In for a penny, in for a pound.

  21. Speaking of freedumb:

    That’s from analysts at Evercore ISI, who in a note Wednesday commented on a Tuesday report by the National Transportation Safety Board on a fiery Tesla TSLA, -2.64% Model X crash in the San Francisco Bay Area that killed an Apple Inc. AAPL, +1.59% engineer.

    The NTSB faulted several parties, including the driver, who allegedly was playing a videogame, and said that the Tesla system failed in several technical areas, including not activating the automatic emergency brake.
    […]

    “The potential for consumer lawsuits, if no recall occurs, is also non-trivial,” they said. Autopilot is only partial automation “that consumers often mistake and/or misuse” as a system capable of higher autonomy levels, and that “is the heart of the problem,” the analysts said.

  22. “One of the proudest positions that we have in this party is our open-border plank,” Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger,

    I’m all for open borders, provided they are open in both directions and provided we have abolished the US welfare state first.

    Without both of those preconditions, open borders are suicidal, and any candidate who embraces them is a fool.

    1. A fool and a danger to Americans.

    2. If you insist that there can’t be freedom in sector A without freedom in sector B, you will always be unfree.

      Another way to look at it:
      If you insist that the State try to “fix” problems caused by the State, you will end up with a bigger State, and more problems.

      1. If you insist that there can’t be freedom in sector A without freedom in sector B, you will always be unfree.

        I don’t insist on that. I insist that the only way to get back to small government is to undo our bad policies in reverse order from how we instituted them.

        It’s “open borders” activists who want to pile new, bad, progressive policies on top of old bad progressive policies.

  23. UMM. Lets say there is a group of people who for two thousand years have been welcomed to different Western jurisdictions, but who continually prove they have more allegiance to their tribe than to the nation they live in. These people are very intelligent, and adept at aligning themselves with the ruling class. They exercise much more influence on the society than their numbers would predict. They have very high IQ and become titans of finance, media and politics. They use their influence to commit enormous white collar crimes, and hide their ethnicity from the populace through their media monopolies. They owe allegiance primarily to their tribe and the nation their tribe lives in, not to the nation they inhabit. Would we have open borders for them, as well? Just asking

    1. Lets say there is a group of people who for two thousand years have been welcomed to different Western jurisdictions

      Speaking for myself, I’d be intensely curious to learn the secret of their longevity.</a.

      Would we have open borders for them, as well? Just asking

      Do you think you’re being subtle?

      tl;dr: we can’t have open borders because JOOOS!!!

      1. If the conspiracies are correct… I just want in on (((it)))!
        At some point, you just gotta tip your hat

    2. Lets say there is a group of people who for two thousand years have been welcomed to different Western jurisdictions

      Your premise is wrong: Jews have generally had a harder time to immigrate to Western countries than non-Jews.

      They exercise much more influence on the society than their numbers would predict. They have very high IQ and become titans of finance, media and politics

      Yes, that’s quite common among ethnic and religious minorities. It’s was true of Germans in Eastern Europe. Chinese in Sri Lanka, and lots of other groups.

  24. The cheap swipes at Jeff Deist are really petty. And I doubt Welch has even read Hoppe. What an asshole.

  25. So we let everyone in and hope they don’t starve to death on our lawn.

  26. I will support open borders on the same day that all people on the planet dedicate themselves to personal autonomy, individual rights and responsibilities, and free markets, and swear off any desire for socialized statist government.

  27. Open borders is a euphemism for forced integration.

  28. This is why libertarianism is a joke today. Nation States exist for reasons and a very good one is the defense of our natural rights. Look at history since we started to allow mass immigration from cultures which are not ground in our ideas of common law and limited govt. The massive immigration from southern and eastern Europe where the people had NO idea of liberty but were very attractive to big govt, cronyism and so on led to the New Deal which we are still paying the price for. Now let’s just open borders and by some epiphany all these new immigrants will become limited govt, bill of rights fanatics, anti Fed, anti war. Sure..sorry but freedom of movement across borders at the risk of losing our culture of liberty is a risk too great for me.

    1. These open borders people are LINOs not Libertarians.

      You can prove this by hearing them discuss their other positions on issues. Those positions are not libertarian either.

      These people are out neuter Libertarianism so it cannot out maneuver the Democrat Party or the GOP. Luckily the Democrat is imploding, so Americans might be interested in fiscal responsibility, strong property rights, tiny and limited government, strong civil liberty protections, and not be like the two major political parties are now.

      Anarchists are ignored so they hide among libertarians and Democrats. Libertarians have some positions about civil freedoms that intersect but Anarchist dont like our Constitutional democratic republic like Libertarians do.

      1. TWO EXCELLENT Posts!!!

        Seems to me like the biggest problem with the LP taking off is it’s just too-close theoretically to the RP’s platform so of course one of their biggest topics today is ‘immigration’ as its one of the very few that differentiates them from the RP. It’s just advertising what little difference exists and mostly JUST BECAUSE a difference must exist.

        RINO’s give the RP a bad image but the very platform ideologies between the two are almost identical and getting more so every day. Republicans took over the Libertarian-ism foundation when they decided to stop being puritans.

      2. I’m an anarchist who is anti-open borders (read Hoppe), your definition of consitutionalism as libertarian is almost as bad as the leftists larping as libertarian

  29. Wavy Gravy Boothead was the only one present, including Matt, who had read a single plank of the party platform. It was the plank to import terrorists and pandemic carriers without inspection. Every platform change AFTER our 4 million plus votes record was designed to alienate voters and make us look like… like… those idiot wannabee candidates!

    1. this is where I would hope tom woods and ron paul would say…”your nuts..” by this rational let’s just allow any military force to invade as once they settle in the US..they will adopt our founding father’s beliefs and virtues…hell we don’t need a military anymore..anyone for open borders is committing murder of our liberties…

      1. The US can’t really be invaded militarily.
        Protected on 2 sides by 2 giant oceans, with 2 rather large countries to get through on the other 2 borders.
        If Mexico or Canada were hostile military powers comparable to Russia or China, they could conceivably do it. But even then, the US is geographically huge, with diverse terrain, dispersed manufacturing centers, vast resources, and a large, well-armed populace.
        But I can’t be the only one on earth who realizes it’s not incredibly hard to invade – because our immigration policy is very generous, and our borders minimally secure.
        Want to invade the US?
        Judt flood it with “migrants”

      2. I don’t care if an “army” wants to cross a border. I care about any violations of NAP their individuals commit after they have done so.

        Comparing immigration to invasion is disanalogous in the extreme.

  30. Wavy Gravy Boothead was the only one present, including Matt, who had read a single plank of the party platform. It was the plank to import terrorists and pandemic carriers without inspection. Every platform change AFTER our 4 million plus votes record was designed to alienate voters and make us look like… like… those idiot wannabee candidates!

  31. Notice that this is unreason’s first mention of LP candidates in 2020 and unreason still spins this as propaganda for open border position that unreason holds.

    What about other libertarian candidates?
    What about other libertarian issues?
    What about actual libertarian positions that are okay with tiny and limited government enforcing its property rights to control immigration?

  32. And that is why, as a true libertarian, I have never once been able to vote FOR a libertarian candidate. Idiots.

  33. (Jacob Hornberger quote) “I grew up on a farm on the Rio Grande. We hired illegal immigrants….Y’all know about the checkpoints. We got ’em over there. I’ve been stopped by the Border Patrol myself when I was in high school, ‘Open up your trunk!’ Warrantless searches onto our farm to bust our workers. It’s a police state, and there’s only one solution to it: Dismantle it all. People have a fundamental, God-given right to cross borders like human beings and not die of thirst and dehydration in the desert and on the back of 18-wheelers.”

    I’ve read his stances on some of the issues and agree with a lot of what he thinks, but this statement is kind of moronic and borders (pun intended) on a positive right.

    1. an executive order . . . that dissolves the federal government

      This . . . isn’t actually a thing, is it? Sure, the president could put the entire executive branch on furlough, but he can’t dissolve Congress or dismiss the Supreme Court.

      This malformed idea is pure hyperbole for rhetorical effect. Right?

  34. People have a fundamental, God-given right to cross borders like human beings and not die of thirst and dehydration in the desert and on the back of 18-wheelers.”

    Yes! And they can exercise that God-given right by not crossing the border illegally! It’s really easy to not cross the border illegally!

    1. People have a fundamental, God-given right to fuck too.
      There are right and wrong ways to exercise that right, and more than one person involved in the decision

      1. Nardz is a fake libertarian Trumper who supports huge budget deficits and tax increases through tariffs. Lol.

  35. The LP is a joke.

    Why isn’t Reason bringing up Justin Amash’s “no” vote on the anti-lynching law? I bring this up because it proves that Amash didn’t all of a sudden become a liberal when he left the GOP. He still sticks by his libertarian principles and should be praised for it. He’s taking a lot of heat from liberals for his vote.

    1. You understand Amash better when you realize that he is just an attention seeker with no principles at all.

      1. Not true at all. Every vote he casts is based on libertarian principles. If that gets him attention, then so be it.

        Trump supports the surveillance state; Amash doesn’t. You Trumper “libertarians” still worship Trump and hate Amash, though. Lol.

      2. Yeah, I’m sure he just loves all this “positive” attention he’s gotten for voting against a lynching ban. Idiot.

  36. Libertarians screw up when they advocate for open borders (with a welfare state intact), abortion on demand, and other left leaning nonsense that appeals to Democrats who aren’t going to vote for them anyway. The ideal president in my mind would be a libertarian who is pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, anti-war, and pro-unilateral free trade. That separates me from both the Trumpers and most of the anti-Trumpers who comment here. I disagree with the Trumpers on free trade but also disagree with the anti-Trump people on immigration and abortion. I’m a Ron Paul libertarian.

    Protectionists who say that free trade must be reciprocated by our trading partners don’t seem to understand that trade isn’t a zero sum game where you have to export more to “win.” In fact, huge trade deficits are often the evidence of robust economies where wealthy people simply choose to buy imports. BTW, we’ve lost manufacturing jobs in the last year, so Trump’s trade war is not working. American factories rely on imports too, which means they lay off workers if costs go up. Giving subsidies to farmers is flat out socialism, and you cannot claim to be a libertarian and support that. Period. We pay the tariffs, not China.

  37. To the idiots here who claim that Trump is a “quasi libertarian president,” he has added $3 trillion to the national debt in three years. If the deficit keeps going up each year, Trump can easily break Obama’s record.

    1. True, but I voted the LP ticket.

  38. America is doomed. Fake conservative Trump vs. socialist Bernie vs. fake Libertarian who has no chance of winning anyway = crap. That’s not a choice.

  39. ★Makes $140 to $180 consistently online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am a step by step understudy and work essentially one to two or three hours in my additional time.Everybody will complete that obligation and monline akes extra cash by simply open this link……Read MoRe

  40. Start getting paid every month online from home more than $15k just by doing very simple and easy job from home. Last month i have earned $17954 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day using my laptop. I am now a good online earner. Get this job you guys also and start earning money online right now by follow details here………… Read More

  41. No actual Libertarian supports open borders. This batch of Leftists are NOT Libertarians. They are Radicals and Progressives.

    1. True. However, no actual libertarian supports increasing government either. Trump has made government larger and has added $3 trillion to the national debt, yet there is a contingent of idiots on this site that worships him.

  42. “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” Milton Friedman

    Get real, the welfare state is here to stay. Immigration has to be controlled. Put away the philosophy lesson and live in the real world.

    1. Freedom to travel =/= freedom to move =/= freedom to take (i.e. steal). Southern immigration is due to the search of “greener pastures” — “greener pastures” they themselves REFUSE to achieve by themselves.

      They migrate BECAUSE they want to EAT someone else’s greener pastures. That is their ‘intent’… It’s not about “freedom to travel”.

    2. This is my biggest beef with the LP. They know the welfare state will not go away,but still push this “open borders” nonsense. Or say some how magically they can do both at the same time. Anyone who has paid attention to immigration over the past forty years understands its always amnesty and never reform/enforcement. At some point it needs to flip. Enforce the laws, then look at amnesty, reduce the welfare state then loosen immigration policies. The LP’s push for open borders is almost dictatorial, don’t the citizens have a right to decide policy?

      1. If you insist that there can’t be freedom in sector A without freedom in sector B, you will always be unfree.

        Another way to look at it:
        If you insist that the State try to “fix” problems caused by the State, you will end up with a bigger State, and more problems.

  43. “Nationalists like Hans-Hermman Hoppe.”
    HHH is an anarcho-capitalist who believes that in a private law society there would be less acceptance of mass immigration than a policy of open state borders.
    If you disagree that is fine, but the label of “nationalist” is baseless, although I should expect nothing less from this lolbert rag

  44. Do the betting pools yet have figures on how much less of the vote they will get than Gov. Johnson did in 2016?

  45. Auction off all of the so called “public property”. The rest takes care of itself.

  46. I ask: Is Trump anti-illegal immigration or anti-immigration. I’ve never heard him say he’s against the latter. Has he passed laws that restrict immigration or have immigration numbers remained the same? Or are we conflating the two again?

    “One of the most glorious, honorable positions that this party has ever taken is open borders,” he said.”

    I guess libertarians ARE naive. I’m not the most ‘rigid’ of people but even I know you need basic border control to protect the sanctity (and sanity) of the nation-state.

    Opening up and saying ‘come in one and all’ may sound honourable but it’s really impractical.

    I think. I just don’t see how ‘open borders’ is a good idea.

  47. For those of us who dream of a libertarian society, it’s discouraging to see that dream becoming increasingly disconnected from reality. Welfare and entitlements aren’t going away. It’s been a half-century since LBJ launched “The Great Society,” and most Americans seem inclined to increase, not decrease, entitlements. Open borders are unthinkable in that context. As entitlements increase, so must restrictions on immigration. Is it rational to imagine any other scenario?

  48. Leftists want open borders to flood the country with desperately poor people who have no cultural disposition against socialism and will therefore (after being made citizens) vote for Democrats. If these fools get the open borders they campaign for, they will become even more irrelevant than they already are.

    1. and will therefore (after being made citizens) vote for Democrats

      Or before. That’s why Democrats oppose voter ID.

  49. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==►Read MoRe 

  50. They are all Koch followers it seems. I have been suffering the result if illegal workers my whole life. Changed occupations three times. Had to leave states as they took over blue collar jobs. Seems the Libertarians are just spoiled urban liberals with no real life experience. I expect they will lose worse than last time with this row of intellectual losers.

    1. We increased our law-changing spoiler vote clout 328% with 2016 pro-choice candidates and OK planks. That’s winning because the more votes the LP gets, the fewer people the communo-fascists get to rob, jail and kill.

  51. The story checks out, but the LP still has the old suicide plank posted online. This business of importing pandemic victims and jihadists versus exporting prohibition and cherrypicking the economic collapse exodus for brain drain plus importation of creation scientists is where the LP ought to be backing neither side of the Kleptocracy. We do best guiding them into debating our causes, not the other way around.

  52. Confusing the Libertarian desire for a world with freedom to travel anywhere you want , (Libertarian principle) , with unlimited permanent immigration is not warranted as there is no Libertarian consensus on total open immigration because of our welfare state and the magnet for abuse it is.
    Totally open borders at this point in time is insanity in operation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.