Here is a link to the second half of the Libertarian presidential debate held in Biloxi, Mississippi, on the evening of February 27. It lasts 40 minutes. There is only about one minute of dead time at the beginning.
The link goes to the second half of the event, which had five participants: Marc Allen Feldman, Gary Johnson, John McAfee, Darryl Perry, and Austin Petersen. Earlier there had been a preliminary round with additional candidates. The audience for the first half determined that these five candidates should be in the final round. Thanks to IndependentPoliticalReport for the link. UPDATE: see this Examiner story about the debate.
This had my interest until they got to the immigration issue. Every candidate said basically the same thing: Libertarians are complete open borders = no country. Sad.
A healthy election system presents the voters with different points of view, so that people can think about the issue. It’s good to have different points of view in an election campaign.
“Libertarians are complete open borders = no country.”
Not true; only the extreme ones that are a fringe minority in the LP are.
Libertarianism would essentially protect our borders by-
*Phasing out the same welfare systems that attract illegals here in the first place.
*Stimulate and deregulate the economy to where businesses and companies wouldn’t have to outsource or hire illegals because of ridiculous taxes or excessive labor laws since we would have an excellent pro-business climate under libertarian rule.
*Strengthen castle-doctrine/stand-your-ground laws everywhere to the point that any would-be illegal that wants to commit crimes against, or merely trespass on the private property of a U.S. citizen would think again about doing such.
The LP would in fact create a new and more constitutional set of checks & balances that would make economic protectionism and militarized borders unnecessary. And I’d rather put my trust in such a Pro-Liberty party over one that advocates for a government that conforms and even enforces the ‘teachings’ of the Bible (Theocracy); such a government would be reprehensible and just as totalitarian as any communist one, as well as being highly unconstitutional.