George Bush and his GOP Congress have made one thing very clear -- in spite of their rhetoric, they are worse than the Democrats on a whole bunch of issues, including those around fiscal responsibility. In fact, things have gotten to the point that many Republicans don't even pretend to believe in limited government any longer. The sad truth is that the Bushes have destroyed the party that Goldwater, Reagan and so many others tried to build. They deserve to go down in flames. I for one will help this process by voting for Barr if he manages to get the LP nomination.

An area that is of prime importance to conservatives is the issue of illegal immigration. The libertarian platform is for open borders. Barr will not get my vote of that of many conservatives as long as that is the case.

I concur with PaulL. Support for open borders is a dealbreaker for me. If we did not have a welfare state, a goal of the Libertarian Party and many conservatives, then the issue of illegal immigration is less of a concern. Until that day comes, the borders must be secured.

Libertarians think that government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation.

Libertarians seek to apply this principle consistently and that includes individuals seeking to immigrate to the United States. Advocates of restrictions on immigration must explain which restrictions they seek that do not violate this basic principle of justice.

Generally, advocates of immigration quotas - which is what creating exceptions to just immigration is - would oppose restrictions on people seeking to leave the United States. By what principle of justice do they make this distinction between immigration in and emigration out?

The typical objection, mentioned above, is that immigrants are welfare leeches. They come to take and produce little or nothing in return. But at the same time they charge that immigrants are taking jobs from Americans.

The fact is the immigrant workers produce profits for Americans who in turn pay taxes which subsidize America's native welfare leeches. Even though the immigrants are willing to pay these taxes while receiving little or no benefits from those taxes, still some Americans want to drive them out and keep them out.

Since immigration restrictions prevent labor from coming into America where the capital that produces job opportunities is, that capital is penalized and it must flee to where the workers are. Americans lose again.

If labor cannot come to us, capital and its jobs will go to them. Anti-immigrant laws are capital export laws. Such laws are unjust and uneconomic.

Bob Barr is unacceptable.I just finished reading an interview with him in the American Conservative where he states he is opposed to building a fence to protect our border.Barr also wants a steady flow of cheap labor.Ron Paul has good positions on immigration--Barr does not.

Many of the things that we take for granted today, such as universal access to electric power, clean drinking water, and public schools, would be gone if a purely libertarian Federal government were to take over. Recent experience with telephone deregulation, for example, has shown that private cell phone and high speed internet service is not universally available from the private sector alone. If you live in an urban area, these are available but outside of urban areas, coverage is spotty unless you buy satellite connections- which are unreliable in bad weather. Were it not for the efforts of the Federal government in the 1930s through the 1960s, there would not be universally available electric power and clean water. The private sector will only cover those areas in which they can operate at what they think are adequate profit levels. By having taxation and by having previously forced what were once refered to as "natural monopolies" to provide universal coverage, these amenities were once made available nationwide. Libertarians want to take us back to an earlier era when these amenities were not universally available. That doesn't mean that Republicans and Democrats should get off scott-free for indulging in wasteful spending, but there's much good that comes along with some bad on the Federal spending.

D. Frank Robinson's comment is an example of a thread of thinking that runs through LP that prevents thinking Conservatives from actually joining.

His comment reminds me of a very intelligent person with his nose in a book who runs into a door.

Idiot warning: The following is laced with hyperbole to point out the absurdity of a prior post on immigration.

Sex is like immigration. Between consenting adults it is generally legal. Rape is sex, but it is illegal sex. Using DF's logic rape is okay, because everyone is entitled to have sex (whether both parties are of age or even if force is involved). Why should laws matter? Who are we to limit who get's to have sex? Besides we need more workers, so the pregnancies from these rapes will help American business because some day the little one will work for a real American...who will make a profit and have to pay taxes.
In his definition it seems there is no distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Also, in his world every illegal worker pays taxes, because they aren't paid with cash or bartered room and board. Right. Did everyone else also see the Easter Bunny this year?
National sovereignty permits nation states to define the rules for who gets to cross their borders and who gets to stay in their country. Bet the Germans wished they could have sent 50,000 soldiers in mufti across the borders in WWII to wreak havoc in the US heartland.
Who has some of the most strict immigration laws in the world? The Swiss. Darn, that poverty stricken country will never make it.
Regarding stopping people from leaving and saying there is also a will to place a quota on emmigration, (marijuana use is illegal if this is an actual attempt at a cogent argument stop toking and try again when the buzz where's off), I say if you want to leave, don't let the door hit you in the butt.
We are a nation of laws, the rule of law is what made us great. It's what keeps us great. Law abidance is not arbitrary.
By the way, I presume if I am in DF's hometown and need a place to sleep, I can just barge in and sleep on the couch or in an empty bed. Without his permission of course and without a call to let him know that I am coming. I'll be in town working for another American who will profit from my actions and taxes will be paid so those slovenly 'native American leeches' will get their dole. DF's door will naturally be unlocked because anyone should have a right to just walk right in (personal property rights mirroring national border controls) and make themselves at home. Oh, yeah, I like Miller light, except on Friday's I splurge and want Sam Adams and pizza ordered in. So have the fridge stocked and the pie delivered by 6:00, DF. Sorry, I can't chip in on paying for it. (Free schools, medical care, food, shelter, should be paid for by those evil Americans who are making a profit off of me).

If we had no limits on immigration, as per Mr. Robinson, then I hope he would enjoy living in a house with 10 other people like the other immigrants, because that's what employers would pay if they could get yet more cheap immigrant labor. Living with 10 people in a house built for 5 people is not exactly my idea of the American dream. Hey, why not let it be 15 people instead of 10? Your average quarter-acre suburban tract could easily accommodate a few tents on the lawn. And then there's all that unused space at community parks. That's how all the third world countries handle their housing shortages from unregulated capitalism not paying enough wages for people to have a decent lifestyle. Back to the good old 1870s !!

Liberals believe human suffering is caused by external forces such as poverty and lack of education. However, that ignores the reality of human nature: people have an inclination to selfishness and laziness if they don't have some sort of strong ethics.

Traditional-value conservatives recognize human nature has flaws, and the checks and balances of the Constitution reflect that philosophy. That philosophy works because it is the correct understanding of human nature. The lack of that understanding leads to the increased misery of socialism and the atrocities of communism.

However, libertarians have problems of their own. They assume society's problems are also caused by external forces, except they blame big government. Libertarians have not caused human suffering on a scale similar to liberals, however, their governments tend to fall apart and and then are unable to protect good people. Historical examples of failed experiments in minimalist government are the French Revolution and the United States Articles of Confederation.

Because libertarians do not understand human nature is problem, they are not able to protect good people from those who abuse liberty in order to cause harm. The failure to comprehend that humans by their nature can choose to tear down good elements of society, they have no appreciation for national security or strong borders. If libertarians were in charge back then, they would not have been able to protect against or prosecute the U.S. citizens who helped the Nazis in sabotage attempts during WWII, and not have been able to defend against the people in the North who tried to help the South during the Civil War.

Conservative Democrats like Zell Miller or moderates like Joe Liberman are preferable to a Libertarian candidate because Libertians' flaws would keep them from doing the job necessary to make sure our country is not destroyed by domestic or foreign terrorists before the next presidential election in four years.

To George Robertson:
Do you consider yourself a socialist?

The prescription drug plan is not a bribe for seniors. It is a subsidy to the drug companies,