The LP platform hasn't significantly changed in the 30+ years I've been a member. It is a consistent philosophy with principles, even if it doesn't include as deep a philosophy as Objectivism. (A fact that doesn't bother me since I long ago outgrew the notion that any "ultimate bedrock" exists into which a philosophy can ever be grounded. Beneath logic and semantics there is nothing but a vacuum.)

Those who call it inconsistent simply need to unlearn the bogus dualism of "left" and "right".

This statement on immigrants would seem to me to show Johnson is going after Hillary's voters, not Trump's at this time. Polls indicate Trump has no support from immigrants.

Toward the end of the 19th century they were called "Mugwumps." Because they had their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other.

Libertarianism is NOT the opposite of liberalism, which is also not the same as progressive. It is not possible to be in alignment on social freedom and be opposite. The problem with progressives is they don't follow up social freedom with complimentary responsibility.

Yes, I agree. They are labels that have lost their meanings. At the turn of the 19th to 20th century, liberal meant what we now call conservative. Libertarian has come to be a party of rational philosophy in name only, while liberal now means socialist. We once had a country that was a Rolls-Royce compared to others. Today we'll have to get there in a Yugo.

I sincerely hope that is the case, but I have never trusted ANY poll.

Simply put, Congress ONLY has the power to set Immigration and Naturalization policy, according to the US Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the Federal Government sole province to enforce those powers.

As long as the states are following the same policy (and they should be held to account for it, both doing too much, and too little), they are fully expected to help enforce immigration law.

I don't think Johnson is an O... Those that have paid into SS should get their money. Those that have snuck in under the wire should get no benefits. If we did away with the welfare state we could have open borders- only screening for criminals. Friedman was right- you can't have both.

I agree !!!

CG is not yet O. He is a trainee. ;-)

"If [IL residents] go spend it in Iowa, then Iowa has my money."
That FIB you paid probably drove his Lexus 80mph to WI for this long weekend and is spending that money here right now. :) :)

"I would go for Johnson because spending a wasted vote for the lesser authoritarian is the right thing to do."
He's about as libertarian as you can be and have a shot at winning. I think he has a real shot if some sort of major scandal or upset were to occur. It would have to be something like positive proof that Trump paid underage Mexican boys to sleep with him. Obviously that didn't happen, but something like that would cause him to lose the redneck vote. The conservatives who would vote for him b/c he has the best shot at winning would go to Johnson. Then a bunch more Democrats like me might go to Johnson, esp in a year like this when the Democratic nominee is not that popular. Johnson has a slim but real chance of winning. I have a sign up in my front yard, which is on a major commuter road 3 blocks north of a high tech park with 3,800 employees, just the kind of people who might vote Johnson.
"is giving me the mental picture of brown shirted jackboots "
I get that image from his rhetoric, but I think (hope) he couldn't execute it effectively, and he's just saying that to fire up the scared, confused, and angry rednecks of the US.

"Clinton, with her anti-economic stance,"
I think she's a master of the status quo. In a country where gov't is a big chunk of the GDP, she'd make sure everyone gets a little slice and the gov't machine keeps its high taxing and spending. I don't think she's really anti-economic. That's just for the scared and confused handout-seekers, who are similar to rednecks Trump seeks but slightly less angry.

I try not to get caught up in it. These are amazingly good times, and politicians gear their message to people who have a problem that they can offer to solve. It's similar how ads try to suggest you have some failing or something missing that their product/service can fix. So if you listen to politicians and commentators you get this idea of how everything is miserable, even though this is an amazingly prosperous and peaceful time in human history.

Not a valid analogy. You OWN your home. Just who OWNs the US?