Libertarian Viewpoints on Immigration, Gay Marriage and Abortion

A panel of libertarians discuss their views on a host of social issues, including gay marriage, immigration and abortion.

[@eliechallita]

Dear Lord Cthulhu that audience is annoying. The panel's there to share their knowledge. Shut up, listen until they're done, and then feel free to ask questions.

[@DCUnderdog3000]

As a libertarian i think we should still just regulate immigration as minimally as possible. Im not really for "complete open borders."

[@Scharlarntz]

I'm a libertarian too. Actually the key is LEGAL immigration. Those who come to the US to contribute to the economic and social aspect. Those who intend to commit crimes (child prostitution, drugs, etc.) should NOT be allowed to enter, and those who are already in the US should be DEPORTED. It's not a "racist" thing, it's a national security thing.

[@aetas4500]

I don't think anyone including Democrats and Libertarians advocate for complete open borders.

[@29-arnavsamant97]

@@aetas4500 the Dems do tho. That is only if it makes the republican look bad. That's why Biden is discouraging illegal immigration but when trump did it, he was called all sorts of things

[@tommyanomaly6193]

@@29-arnavsamant97 Theirs's certainly an unhealthy level of partisanship in mainstream media.

[@wfjhDUI]

@@29-arnavsamant97 Can you give even a single genuine and non-hyperbolic example of a high-profile Democrat advocating open borders? I've never seen it. The only cases I've run into of people genuinely advocating open borders were either libertarians or leftists.

[@wfjhDUI]

The Fox News audience would lose their minds in incoherent rage if this was broadcast today.

[@LSMitchell]

And even more today! LOL

[@thatboii3094]

@@LSMitchell America always gets worse. I don't know why

[@tommyanomaly6193]

@@dadaismotienekasepta Both sides hate Libertarians. I get it all the time online from both sides.

[@gregvaldez1269]

@@dadaismotienekasepta I'm far left but fuck both CNN and Fox , both are propaganda networks .

[@crobeastness]

fox news has always been centrist. that being said, conservatives don't care about immigrants, they just care about legal immigrants.

[@Gabe-qc5ji]

Can the audience shut up. I’m trying to listen, even if I might have some disagreements it’s a valuable discussion

[@conagri5000]

Wtf?

[@conagri5000]

Stossel getting the bug too?

[@iamgodofhumancollective5968]

Vote Libertarian or our Constitution is lost.

[@JoseMartinez-ig4lx]

It's a gradual process, but it's getting there.

[@Codad]

Great interviews, but it would be much more enjoyable if the guests weren't always being interrupted by the audience.

[@cloutiec]

Super obnoxious crowd response

[@Porelorexeus]

My favorite is the black guy. :)

[@distritofederal7187]

Nah Deroy is a conservative

[@myles9075]

I was just thinking that, Deroy is great, I agreed with everything he said, he was the best

[@myles9075]

@@distritofederal7187 and no he’s not a conservative, he’s more libertarian

[@nathaneccleston97]

Friedman was in favor of immigration. He identified two different forms of immigration, immigration to jobs and that of welfare. There are 3 different ways to deal with the problem of immigration to welfare that are consistant with his views, get rid of it (welfare ), allow illegal immigration (turn a blind eye), or make it so that immigrats cant apply for welfare for X number of years. "Its good (immigration) so long as its illegal"-milton friedman.

[@WhyIHatetheWorld]

I like how the audience is to the right of the Libertarians.

[@AlexG-nr4eh]

Making an abortion impossible is also a restriction of freedom.

[@jektonoporkins5025]

I would agree that immigration needs to be streamlined. The first guy had a great point...there was no such thing as a legal immigrant. Most of my ancestors were Englishmen, Dutchmen, and Germans that came here before 1700. The rest were Germans and Scots that came here in the 1830's and 1840's. You know what my German and Scot ancestors that came here in the 1830's and 1840's had to do to become legal immigrants? They had to step off a boat. Now it takes 10 years and $10,000, and a Mexican laborer working for a few dollars a day cannot save up $10,000 for himself, much less his family. We ought to streamline the immigration process, have check stations on the border, and give them green cards. If they become productive citizens and have jobs, give 'em citizenship. If they're lazy and collect welfare the whole time, don't give 'em citizenship.

[@emil.jansson]

Dude, I don't give a f about your "ancestors".

[@Prenna23]

Interesting option. My emotional and pre-conditioned response to your question would be "Well, if they've waited till the 3rd trimester to act, they need to take responsibility for their inaction and at least see it to term." Clearly though that is me projecting my own expectations of "taking responsibility" onto another person. I'll have to give it some more thought.

[@YorickReturns]

I think it's excuse-making to say that we shouldn't have free migration because of the welfare state. You could make that argument against the libertarian position on every other issue. We allegedly can't legalize drugs, as long as tax money goes toward drug addicts in the form of health-care, unemployment benefits, etc. If the welfare state is stretched to the point of collapse by free migration, good! Let it collapse. This excuse-making is like saying that, as long as the welfare state exists, there should be restrictions on the numbers of children we, or some of us, can have, because government has a legal obligation under the welfare state to provide 'free' education and that costs tax money.

[@YorickReturns]

"you're delusional pal". Great argument, 'pal'. "Last time I checked..." When did I say I was American? The argument nevertheless applies to America, albeit with slightly different details here and there. For example, America's health-care is mostly socialized, and was mostly socialized even before ObamaCare. It is very likely that legalizing drugs would lead to more drug-related health-care costs payable by the tax-payer. In fact, Ann Coulter gave that as a justification for why she doesn't want drugs legalized. Libertarians who oppose free immigration are not libertarians at all. They just can't bring themselves to admit that they're fundamentally conservatives, albeit with a greater orientation to liberty than many other conservatives. That's fine, but leave us libertarians alone, because your pretence is not doing us or you any good.

[@YorickReturns]

Ewhelden So, I can't know anything about America because I'm not American? I'm sure I know more than you do. If my opinion means nothing to you, why do you keep replying? You're an angry conservative in denial. You want to believe so much that you're a libertarian, but you're not a libertarian, as your anti-foreigner words have made so very clear. It's not good to be in denial. The sooner that you accept that you're a conservative, rather than lurking around libertarianism, the better for you. There is no libertarian against free immigration, just as there is no libertarian argument for the War on Drugs or for restrictions on numbers of children, despite the costs that each of these may impose on the welfare state.

[@YorickReturns]

Ewhelden Well, your anger is pretty obvious. Non-angry people don't go around calling people's opinions 'shit'. And, if you oppose immigration but learn towards liberty in other areas, the accepted label for that is 'conservative'. And, if you're watching a Stossel clip about libertarianism and immigration, you probably fancy yourself as being a libertarian.

[@YorickReturns]

Ewhelden "And as far as welfare,food stamps and what have you,people coming into the US illegally should not have access to funds paid by US workers". I agree. But, there shouldn't be any welfare for anyone, because taxation is theft. "(open borders mean companies can exploit cheaper labor)". No one's being exploited. Slavery is already illegal. Just because you disagree with someone's life choices, that doesn't mean that you should get to forbid such choices. Otherwise, why shouldn't we also ban unhealthy food, ban having 'too many' kids, ban dysfunctional romantic and sexual relationships, etc?

[@YorickReturns]

Ewhelden If 'exploitation' is to mean anything, it has to mean lack of consent. As I said, slavery is already illegal. If we give it some other meaning, then it's basically just the arbitrary imposition of your opinion through law. As I said, why not give some bureaucrat the power to ban 'unhealthy' foods or 'dysfunctional' relationships or having 'too many' children?

[@trime1851]

Great series! Thank you for posting!!

[@chriskb2495]

first time i'm annoyed with stossel's crowd

[@independentRestorationServices]

I think they’re a Fox crowd and not necessarily Stosell’s own crowd

[@ethan3537]

1. Immigration should be greatly expanded but the border should still continue to exist and some vetting of immigrants should take place. That said it shouldn’t be as hard as it is to come here. 2. Gay marriage is not the business of the government to regulate however neither is religion. Gays should be allowed to marry and religious people should be free to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. 3. The constitution asserts the importance of Life. One of the few roles of the government is to protect the lives of its citizens including the unborn.

[@JakeRosen635]

What if a religious person refused to bake a wedding cake for an African American couple? It's religious freedom, right? (btw not saying this is ever likely to happen, just trying to play devil's' advocate)

[@carultch]

Thank you, Ron Paul. Glad someone understands this inconsistency.

[@amgxpat]

I find it interesting how no one speaks up for a man's choice in the abortion discussion. If two consenting adults procreate together, then she unilaterally ends the future fetus (his child too), he has no say in the matter, a violation of his parental rights. Conversely, if she refuses to abort, he has no method to sign away his parental rights coerced by the state to pay unconstitutional child support.

[@independentRestorationServices]

From a libertarian standpoint none of that stuff matters for the two major arguments. The main two views for libertarians are that it’s either it’s a life and needs to be protected or it’s the woman’s body and therefor she’s got the right to decide what she does with her body. Occasionally some prolife libertarians will bring up contract law and the implied contract between a man and women when having sex. The resulting pregnancy is a result of that contract and therefore the man has a say. But that’s kind of a weird argument to have with mainstream America. It’s worth bringing up to turn pro-choice libertarians into prolife, but the “saving a life” thing usually carries more weight.

[@tcskips]

@@independentRestorationServices the question being when does it become an autonomous individual with the same rights as you or I.

[@yamamotoyamamoto1]

I'm from Brazil and I wish my country had political debates like this.

[@ca1cifer]

It pissed me off that so many people were booing the harvard economist when he was talking about opening the borders.

[@BearFan09]

As someone who considers myself pretty libertarian, I would like to say that the libertarian position should be pro-life. Libertarians believe that the government's main role is to protect individual rights. Three of the rights listed are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I think that the libertarian position aligns with the pro-life side as the government's responsibility is to protect the right to life of the baby inside the womb. The mother has her rights as well, but nowhere do

[@punxride024]

When did this air on Fox? This is the first quality material I've seen come from them.

[@aubot8768]

There's too much conservatives who they're libertarians and when they hear what real libertarians have to say they act like the audience.

[@tommyanomaly6193]

Too many people have a binary mindset

[@janhelfeld]

John Stossel, host of the Stossel show, on Fox Business News is interviewed on journalism and the Socratic interviewing that Jan does. He says that Jan is right to ask questions that reveal a contradiction in a politician's thinking and that we ought to show the public when they are mistaken. Jan explains the Socratic interviewing technique offering examples and claims it offers an intellectual and entertainment value. John Stossel says that he is open to having some of Jan's stuff on his show.

[@EpicTrollingCentre]

Libertarians and conservatives alike are big believers in personal responsibility. The formula to a baby is simple: sex= baby, no sex or condom = no baby.

[@RosannaMiller]

I have a question for the woman who believes in open border: does she sleep in a house without locks? Does she have a fence around her house? UPDATE: She's a Canadian? Who the hell cares what she thinks about borders around America!

[@philippf2136]

I have a question to you. Does your city has walls?

[@philippf2136]

@ShadowboyTV Yes from behind.

[@richierich8245]

You are conflating private property and government property into the same thing.

[@alastermyst]

I have a question about libertarian principles/stance on something that try as I might, I can't find the libertarian position on so I'll ask you. Libertarians seem to generally be for peoples rights as long as they aren't hurting anybody (ie they would allow prostitution, drug use, etc.) which I agree with. And they generally seem to be against "Big Government". What exactly is your party/your stance on companies? Should they be treated as individuals and be given more or less complete

[@52000rightwing]

Who needs to attend Harvard School of Economics when you can listen to Jeffrey Miron any time you want, right here on youtube?

[@ThomasEdvalson]

Wendy McElroy, as brilliant as ever.

[@SchuylerPickren]

Lmfao she's a straight up moron

[@hughtub]

It's in our interest to only open immigration to those who will add to the wealth and strength of the country, as James Madison generally put it. We and our ancestors built a nation that made others want to come here, so immigrants should have skills or traits that increase our country's survival.

[@thebandwagoneer]

@xdiesel76 So if two men get married it's sonehow negatively affecting you is it?

[@erikmunoz55]

I am a Libertarian but I tend to disagree just a bit on the Immigration issue.

[@snim9515]

Then you are NOT libertarian.

[@S1eeperServ1ce]

@@snim9515 You don't know what this person disagrees with yet because he hasn't said. The panel do not agree with each other for various reasons. Why so glib?

[@snim9515]

@@S1eeperServ1ce if you disagree with immigration, you only want freedom for yourself and not for others. Freedom for few is no freedom at all. Libertarians have been highjacked by neo cons.

[@asantico]

@@snim9515 I would like to know where to buy that Libertometer. Surely you have one because it is the only fucking way you can know what Erik Munoz thinks without having expressed his arguments yet. I would like to buy one so I can boast of my libertarian moral superiority.

[@snim9515]

@@asantico I don't need a meter. I just need the definition of libertarian.

[@asleeperj]

@Zackerybob A fetus does get rights at conception, for instance, as a grand parent you can write your unborn grandchild into your will, giving it property rights. If you are in an accident with a pregnant woman, and she loses her child because of that accident, you are liable for manslaughter. My point in all of this is consistency. Do not make a fetus property of the bearer, and in the same sentence give it protection under the law. This is how the law is written now.

[@HarryNRubin]

I wish the audience wasn't there, but this was a great panel!

[@tehsuperepicpwnzor]

That was a terrific debate.

[@trayvondindu6331]

this is what libertarians actually believe

[@solomon8833]

What is with all the moaning and groaning from the audience?

[@Eincrou]

@HubertPaetz: That's a good analogy to show the absurdity of her moral argument. I find that abortion is impossible to justify morally, even when in response to rape or incest. However, intellectually, I would be against banning abortion simply because government bans never work, especially when the "crime" is hard to detect, whether it's smoking weed or vacuuming out a fetus. Banning it would just make it extremely deadly for both fetus and mother alike when performed on the black market.

[@aubot8768]

Well, not exactly. The fetus is not removed through a C-section, it's literally torn apart in the abortion process. So if you count fetuses as humans it's murder. That's why I would advocate for fetuses that are able to survive to placed in incubators instead of being aborted. The entire abortion issue would be resolved with artificial wombs.

[@Lobocito87]

The first statement on U. S. identity and the best idea at all! 😊

[@Libertarian1776]

I'm a Libertarian and I do NOT agree with open boarders, 95% of the Libertarians I know feel the same way.

[@GuyIncognito8888]

Borders are just lines drawn on a map, by old men, from a time long before we were born. If a family wants to move across the sea to America, why should they have to wait in some kind of process? There is no purpose to this. If the family wants to live in America, they have only to find a house, and actually make the move. All of this bureaucratic paperwork bullshit is completely unnecessary. Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right.

[@Tetzukai]

***** Stick to just production of public goods? What do you mean?

[@reachforacreech]

you do know that free markets require open borders,hence the reason why Friedman was pro open borders.

[@Tetzukai]

reachforacreech It doesn't require open borders, people need to demand open borders for whatever reason in a market which is exactly what will happen when there's a "free" market if not always the case. Open borders is just an obvious consequence of free markets since we know people want it.

[@reachforacreech]

***** try acualy reading some economic text and you will see that you need open borders,there is no middle ground with free trade,either you have it or you dont.if there is free trade a cuban can sail into any port with his load of cigars and marijuana and compete side by side with any domestic business.no tarrifs,no regulations,no visas plus your comment seems contradicting.

[@gideondavid30]

I would agree with you about the state level thing. What I am saying is that it is not UNLIBERTARIAN (or unconstitutional) for the STATES to create such laws that regulate x or y. State power is unlimited - BILL OF RIGHTS. My position is that when the government gets into our private lifes (except in the case of HARM to another human being) it only creates more problems than it solves, costs too much money, and tramples on civil liberties.

[@BearFan09]

...but nowhere does the constitution say that she has the right to terminate another human being's life.

[@Synthmilk]

"Yet the baby is dependent upon mother's milk, mother's love, and so on, without which it'll die." Incorrect, after birth the baby is not dependent on the woman who gave birth to them, they are simply dependent on a certain level of care. This care can be provided by others.

[@marienzasokau8127]

I wonder if, any of these guests are living and experiencing what's been happening today 2022 since 2017 in regards to the border issues and caravans of come one come all immigrants. Ie ; Does it jive with their thoughts and ideas ???

[@sphumelelesijadu]

I felt like she had a good point about abortion

[@notyourtypicalfarah7194]

Gay Marriage- No logical reason to be against it unless you’re using your religious views. Abortion- Personally only in the first trimester or up to 18 Weeks after Fertilization, after that it has feelings, and it’s just wrong. Immigration- I don’t feel good about open borders, I’m not white or believe in nationalism or superiority. But I do believe that culture matters. We know that every culture does not believe in freedom. So why have open borders? I’m open to hear other thoughts or be educated in this If I’m wrong.

[@simonjesusbeliever3467]

Some cultures support freedom. Also even with immigration the culture wont seize To exist.

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

Who cares whether or not the baby has feelings? There's plenty of ways to murder an adult without causing him or her pain. The crime in murder is not the pain caused by the injuries, it's the murder.

[@4TIMESAYEAR]

@HubertPaetz - Excellent analogy!!!

[@SuperNache]

the idea is that you can only have entitlements as long as there are enough people who can afford to pay for them. Entitlements are already more than our govt can afford with tax revenues as they are.

[@Personmr]

libertarian discussion, pepsi, and everquest: good times. :)

[@ethankerr1919]

I don’t know if I agreed with it, but that woman gave the best argument for pro-abortion that I’ve ever heard. Most Democrats just say “My body, my choice!” and claim you’re a sexist.

[@carultch]

How do you feel about interfaith marriages?

[@rugs729]

why is jerry springers audience in the studio

[@blackmagicchampion]

I appreciate the fact that I have life, and I extend the respect given to me by others- so we live peacefully and respect the lives of each other. I still don't see how this construes any sort of 'right'. :/

[@gorgonzolaaa]

@vladimirstanislav what did you miss from when I said "immigration laws go back to the early 1800s", KID?

[@liveoak144]

we don't have enough jobs for all our citizens, so I see no point letting more people in to compete for jobs that don't exist.

[@-PURPLE-HEAD]

Immigrants can also create new jobs.

[@teddypgray]

Oh, and BTW, libertarianism isn't just a federal issue. It is an ideology, therefore; it has to be applied to Federal, State, and Local government.

[@Th3Wab3]

the immigration view points are great it's strange that Canada has such strict immigration laws...

[@kubush]

Most states had laws that criminalized abortion before Roe v Wade. So yes, it was made legal. I already addressed her argument and how it shouldn't be taken as a logical absolute that necessitates the legalizing of late term abortion. Don't just repeat your argument as if I never addressed it.

[@BenjaminWirtz]

I don't like that Wendy lady, she is way too snide while the others are discussing disagreements with respect. Also, er arguments seem more emotion based rather than logic based.

[@Amateur_Pianist_472]

How? She's describing bodily autonomy. Which is very logical in a free society.

[@josephp2109]

@@Amateur_Pianist_472 She said "I'm glad you didn't call them an individual with rights" about babies. You and I both were 2 week old fetuses at one point. We, along with the 52 million people who have been aborted, would not be alive if we had been aborted. That's logic. Abortion is murder, murder of 52 million people who should be walking this earth right now! It's genocide, and all she has to argue off of is emotion. I really hope you can see how inconceivable it is that people are arguing for "my skin" and "my choice" and "they aren't an individual with rights".

[@tmac9938]

LOL i love the crowd in this show

[@david52875]

"Tree" is to "seed" as "adult" is to "fetus". Definition of "seed": "A seed is a small embryonic plant in a covering called the seed coat, usually with some stored food." So you're right, a seed is not a tree, a seed contains a tree, in the early stages of development. It's like if I said "and adult is a human and child is not an adult, therefore a child is not human." It is an invalid argument. But this has nothing to do with my original argument.

[@mainstreetdesign4858]

There is a HUGE Difference between Liberals and Libertarians... Please Learn the Difference

[@Zackerybob]

@asleeperj I completely agree; if those laws are inconsistant, than there is a problem. If they want to consider the zygot/fetus a person, than not only should they ban abortion outright, but they should also ban chemical contraception, since they can also cause spontaneous abortions, hell, ban jumping, jogging or any physical activity for pregnant women.

[@kubush]

I realized how old this video is when he said Obama doesn't support gay marriage. He changed his position.

[@Skapo]

@HubertPaetz Well said.

[@patsflysfan2]

Deroy Murdock is right on every issue in this video.

[@Zackerybob]

The argument I'm making is that it is okay to terminate a life that is not yet a person and should not be considered murder/illegal Preventing the existence of someone is not the same as taking someone OUT of existence once they are already here (ie murder). Therefore, it is a lesser ethical dilemma and at worst, should be considered a necessary evil A woman has the right to prevent the existence of something that she doesn't want. The inconsistency of these types of laws is a whole other issue

[@105Mittens]

@KenMacMillan Others states not wanting to recognize marriage in other states is why it became a federal issue...you're right, it's dumb. Does no one remember "Loving vs VA"?

[@david52875]

If we are to believe that a womans right to life implicitly gives her the right to have an abortion, then we must apply that logic consistently to late term abortions and even abortions up to the moment after birth.

[@Zackerybob]

@asleeperj You find what hypocritical? Your statement that males have no say on the abortion issue? The abortion issue is not something that only women have a say in, since the question is whether the fetus should be endowed with personhood. This is a debate that involves both men and women. This is a human issue.

[@repfreedomforce]

Listen to the Fox news crowd react to these issues. Libertarian panel on Fox, priceless! Anyone familiar with these people?

[@johnc1014]

I am for legal immigration, but not for wide-open boarders. I want to get rid of welfare. I want to completely secure our boarders. And then we can make the process far more efficient and allow pretty much anyone willing to come here through that process legally. I do not welcome criminals or people seeking to simply live off our welfare. Secure the boarder to keep them out and then we can let everyone else in freely.

[@johnc1014]

juscurious Firstly, what environmental impact are you speaking of? Secondly, are you are arguing for there to be zero immigration? To answer your question: Yes, I do care about the environment as I kind of need it in order to stay alive. Anyone who does not care about the environment is either kidding themselves or has some sort of death wish.

[@jacobgunter8535]

The black guy was awesome!

[@alastermyst]

"when the fetus is a recognizable human being" So I'm assuming you mean about or after 12 weeks in (which is when the life-form officially becomes a fetus. That seems reasonable. As for the sleeping person analogy, it seems extremely flawed to me to compare a sentient being to non-sentient one.

[@asleeperj]

@Zackerybob If you feel that way, then the laws should be changed. Though at this point in time an OBGYN can be sued if an abortion is believed to be carried out improperly. An unborn fetus still has property rights of it's grandparents will. All i ask for is consistency. There is non in the US legislative, or judicial system. Unborn babies have rights under certain circumstances, and non under others. This is a major problem.

[@melittlelad]

Didn’t even finish watching the video because of the crowd

[@davlor86]

Libertarian Party rules, such a shame it's not that popular.

[@hydrolito]

He's saying we have only so many we can support and not to have more move in than we can sustain with jobs, houses, etc. So limited legal immagration would fall within the range of the substainable.

[@Prenna23]

It's less disagreement than just being too economically illiterate to understand how a lot of Libertarianism works. I have my doubts about completely ending the welfare state, having no state funded education, and ending public health care (I'm originally from the UK, now living in Australia). Other areas such as removing wages and conditions legislation concerns me as well. I'm from a lower socio-economic/working class background and struggle to see how Libertarian economics won't screw us.

[@noahdempsey3329]

The guy who spoke first on immigration is the Libertarian Ted Cruz.

[@asleeperj]

@Zackerybob You missed the point completely, a zygote (you misspelled it.) has property rights, period the end. They can Inherit things from their parents and grandparents (Trusts/Wills.) I asked for consistency. So the life form that lives within a woman, has rights, so long as those rights don't bother the woman? Look at it from an OBGYN perspective, an OBGYN has 2 patients, not one.... why is that? If an OBGYN harms a zygote, and not the woman they can be sued for malpractice. OOPS.

[@MB-ke9mi]

Children outside your body also rely on parents providing food, care, and protection.

[@gorgonzolaaa]

@vladimirstanislav what does that have to do with legal vs. illegal immigration, and immigration law, KID?

[@Synthmilk]

On the contrary, I think the matter is not arbitrary at all. Biologically speaking, the fetus does not become independent, meaning able to survive without the mother specifically, in other words an individual, until a certain degree of development has occurred. This is a clear, and obvious, change in the mother/fetus relationship. The only other times such obvious change happens is at conception, and birth.

[@Prenna23]

I'm not a Libertarian but I agree with a hell of a lot in this video. I'm in favour of gay marriage to the extent that heterosexuals are allowed to get married. My preference would be to get government out of marriage and replace it with private contract between individuals. On abortion I am pro-choice up to the point that a foetus could survive outside the body. At that point it should be illegal. If a person cannot have autonomy over their own body they have autonomy over nothing.

[@enotdetcelfer]

Yea I actually liked a little audible input from the audience! I'm surprised. I think as long as they don't make it hard to hear what the person is saying it actually might help keep the comments integral. Intelligent conversation with a little parliamentary jiding/cheering might be constructive.

[@bobfamilyproductions4]

As a libertarian I do not believe in open borders. Build the wall. Encourage legal immigrants.

[@firstlast9916]

Building a wall encourages illegal immigration. How will they come legally if you make more restrictions? Gotta make less restrictions for them to come legally.

[@robfox6103]

@@firstlast9916 did you just ask how they'd do it legally? theyd do it fucking legally dipshit

[@independentRestorationServices]

Who owns the wall?

[@Zackerybob]

@asleeperj ....you've already mentioned this earlier and I have responded that if there IS inconsistancy, then this is a problem. You're just repeating yourself....

[@lwglwglwg]

@Th3Wab3 No, they don't. Canada's policy for legal immigration, whether it's for skilled workers or through business investment, is MUCH MUCH more friendly and welcome to immigrants from other nations.

[@bdonovable]

The whole panel knocked the gay marriage issue out of the park. I appreciated David Boaz and Deroy Murdock's opinions on immigration and abortion. I didn't care for Wendy McElroy's takes on immigration or abortion. Jeffrey Miron's take on immigration was backwards; ie, Milton Friedman got it right: opening the borders and expecting the welfare state to disappear afterwards is mistake. Allowing anyone, including non-libertarians into the the United States would hardly guarantee that libertarian policy would be enacted.

[@blueraven6693]

Im a paleo libertarian. Im pro life and traditional marriage. Because i think its wrong. But in every issue regarding economics, taxation, private property, gun rights, and free republic. I think the government should piss off

[@raycirx]

Very interesting video. I am NOT a liberterian so this was educational. It shows what liberterians believe and that they do disagree on many of these issues. I also agree this audience is annoying!

[@dannys3800]

Harvard professor on news station with extensive research skills and education: “statistically speaking, Native American citizens will use the same amount of welfare as illegal immigrants crossing the boarder if we open our boarders and it will likely lead to an overall decrease of government funding towards welfare” Random republican: “welL aCtUaLlY”

[@evracer]

Respecting the difference of opinion on abortion is why the decision should be left at proper jurisdictional level.....the individual. I can see both sides of a very difficult debate. The only right I have to bear on that decision is the freedom of speech. If I believe that the fetus has individual rights, I am free to voice that opinion. But to go farther than that is to initiate force against the mother. I can be pro life, and not be in conflict with pro choice. Difficult, yes..Impossible? No.

[@Synthmilk]

I do not see how defining when a fetus becomes independent, and thus an individual, allowing us to separate it's rights from that of it's mother, is splitting hairs, especially when you have yet to propose when a fertilized egg can be considered an individual. So tell me, when does a fertilized egg become an individual?

[@Earley86]

What about the liberty of the child? That child didn't choose to be born in you. Why are you making the decision for someone else? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Life. Yes... O what about your own liberty? What about the liberty of the baby? Under your own liberty you chose to have sex. Therefor you open yourself up to the result of that situation. (Excluding Rape etc etc...)(I'm also aware this is a bit redundant)

[@SKATEyD3STROY]

lol Yeah i'm sure the crowd knows so much more than a harvard economist..

[@HSR107]

That only has relevance if a woman says "put a baby in me". It also assumes that both a home owner and a womb owner has not said "get out" before force was used.