I disagree on the topics of abortion and immigration.

On the topic of abortion, I believe there is room for legitimate debate. I respect the LP's zero government involvement position, but, because it's a moral issue for those who object to it, I can certainly see legitimate cause to debate their advocacy for laws against it.

That the life being killed can't complain is not a reason to ignore the objections of those who protest abortion. It's convenient, but not a logical basis for a position by any standard of moral philosophy. ("populism" and "mob rule" don't count)

I believe that holding human life sacred as a society, as a nation, is a good thing. I think our cultural values and views toward human life here (USA) are far superior to those of many other nations where human life is cheap. While this is a generalization, I think it is a very important one. The status of human life itself in a culture/society, under a set of laws, is rather fundamental and influential over many other aspects of law and society.

Personally, I'd never kill my children. I'm just not that kind of guy. (No, I wouldn't abandon nor neglect them either; I think creating human beings is kindof a big deal.) At the same time, I appreciate the fact that people are going to do it anyway. If laws prohibiting it after the first trimester, for instance, encouraged more people who are going to do it to do it sooner, I wouldn't think that's the worst thing in the world.

So I'm open to debate on the topic, whereas the LP's official position is pretty much "no government regulation" on the activity. I'm not a fan of it and abhor it personally, while I'm aware that trashy people are going to do it anyway--thus, ways to impact their behavior other than a 'ban' which will not effect them are desirable. Yes, I believe that people who kill their kids are trashy. It's my personal political opinion on a politics forum. Brutal place!

Regarding immigration, I would make two points. One, that the LP's open-borders position presumes that the welfare-state has been dismantled. Obviously, opening borders WITHOUT dismantling our current welfare state would be a disaster. (As President Obama advocated doing today) So I don't think the LP's position is completely nuts, as it proposes open borders AFTER federal handouts are reduced/removed and the American people aren't taxed to feed, clothe, house, and school a mass influx of immigrants. Under LP policy, the things offered by America would be liberty and an awesome economic environment. Immigrants attracted to these things are desirable and good for everyone; they work, compete in market places, and result in more and better products at lower prices for everyone.

But, at the same time, I don't see the need to completely give up national borders in order to be free. I want to be free in my nation's borders. That doesn't mean I demand that everyone on earth have the right to enter into my nation at will. There are a number of national security and economic reasons I support reasonable immigration laws (and actual enforcement; imagine that!). Weirdos in Texas who want to become part of Mexico are weirdos, and there's nothing wrong with kicking them out and telling them to stay out! (Those who want to secede ATM, on the other hand, are perfectly reasonable and even desirable!)

Additionally, I think the LP's platform doesn't account for the influx of immigrants that would result from the desirable economic climate their policies would create. I'm all for immigration in a land of immigrants, but the fact is our transportation infrastructure is orders of magnitude greater than it was when the majority of immigrants came to this nation.

Opening our doors to tens of millions of the poor and destitute, in this day and age, isn't necessarily as desirable as it once was. The education curve to engage in our society and produce is greater than it used to be. Voting rights have been dramatically expanded, and the language and communication skills of all are more important than they once were. And our nation itself has developed. There's nothing wrong with wanting more skilled and educated immigrants and less toilet cleaners. We really don't benefit from 50 million more of those. We don't need so many, so some would surely end up preparing food. What if they didn't wash their hands first!? Gross!

I don't mean to be mean to the unskilled and uneducated, but the fact is America just literally doesn't have room for them all. By being an example of liberty and a sexy awesome economy under Libertarian governance, America would be an example for the entire world. (As it once was) Even the poor America just doesn't have room/use for would benefit by America's successful example. What's missing right now are the liberty and successful parts.

There's nothing wrong with looking out for #1 (yourselves/ourselves), especially when it sets an example of success which in turn helps others. So I support immigration policies which accept more of the best and brightest and avoid a mass influx of immigrants that bring down our averages (economic/social statistics). That's what groups of trashy people with 80% illegitimacy rates, high welfare rates, high poverty rates, high drop-out rates, and high crime rates are for!

Additionally, I'm not real thrilled about government completely ignoring personal relationships in regard to adoption by homosexuals. Because children are primarily socialized in the home, and men and women are chemically/physiologically/psychologically/mentally (among other ways) different, development is best served by both a male and female primary role model in the home.

On the other hand, I'm not an orphan, and I can only imagine how awful that must be. I'm not eager to condemn children to be alone if there are loving, willing guardians for them, even if their genders aren't ideal for development. Lots of single parents and widows also lack both genders raising their children, but that's still preferable to the children being parentless. That's why I didn't list this topic at the start of this post, and I'm not necessarily dead-set against it.

The topic of where I my views differ from the Libertarian Party's platform slightly is a new one. You didn't bring it up previously. You didn't ask about it before. Please stop rambling incoherently as if you had--as if I avoided the topic. Vaguely calling me a liar and a trickster has nothing to do with this topic. Please be specific and clear in your responses if you have anything to say about the LP's platform or my views which differ from theirs.

I'm obviously not afraid to voice or discuss my views. Consider trying the same. This is what you got when you asked for my view on something. Doesn't look like I avoided it to me.