Sometimes libertarian impracticality manifests as simply a clumsiness at communicating with the outside world. It's a quirk that they maybe inherited from the Objectivists, who take a perverse pride, sometimes, in being misunderstood, often using a common word, like "selfishness," but using it in a nonstandard way, without explaining the new definition.
But more often, it's the usual downside of ideological thinking — a tendency to make one's ideology paramount, and to resist modifying it in the fact of contrary evidence, but rather to ignore or modify the evidence. Happens all the time, not just with libertarians. But since libertarians place a high value on logic, it's depressing when they don't use it themselves.
And now we get to the good old open-borders issue, yet again. Oh, I've done plenty on that subject. Just enter
in "Search this blog" over there on the top right and you'll find plenty. But to recap, just a bit. Impractical libertarians insist that it's "immoral" to restrict travel, therefore our borders must be open. They also sometimes insist that the very idea of a country is immoral, with the same conclusion. That's all plenty crazy enough all by itself, but here's a couple more examples of their ditzy justifications for inviting unlimited and unfiltered immigration.
One bozo told me that it's wrong, or crazy, or something, to judge people by the group they belong to. He says not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Blacks are this, not all whatever is whatever. Nobody thinks all of any group is any particular thing, so that's a straw man. What we do think (and damn well know) is that groups are statistically different. Not all Muslims are polygamists, but a certain percentage of them are, and a virtually zero percentage of, say, Methodists are. And among those who don't practice polygamy, a large, very large, percentage approve of polygamy, whereas its about zero again with the Methodists. But all this means nothing to bozo, because he keeps hammering away on the indisputable fact that not all Muslims are polygamists, and it's therefore immoral to consider keeping Muslims out of your country if you don't want polygamy to get a foothold. And that's just one delightful foreign practice that unchecked immigration will bless us with. I'm sure you can think of more.
All too many "libertarians" think this kind of ideology is not only permissible to libertarianism, but is actually an essential part of libertarianism.
Not only is the concept impractical, being contrary to the facts and reason and all, but it's even more impractical to think that pushing the concept is going to make libertarianism attractive to the American people at large, who damn well know it's bloody insane to admit immigrants at random. They're sick of hearing feel-good nonsense from the liberals and neocons about how much we need more Third-world peasants, criminals, fanatics, and welfare recipients here, and they're not going to be impressed when they hear if from libertarians.
I've said this before, but libertarianism is, or should be, an adherence to the principles of the Founding Fathers and the best American thinkers who have followed them. Not the hair-splitting dormitory bull-session blather that gives us transgender bathrooms, the Tsarnaev Brothers, pornography for the kiddies, and the sacrifice of the American working class to the big shots on Wall Street.
Libertarianism has a lot of good ideas. For those to prevail, we really should think of a way to get rid of the bad ones, not to march in solidarity with the liberals and neocons to foist them on the American people.
Sometimes I think Trump has thought all this through. He certainly knows that he should be thinking about what's good for the country, instead of what fits neatly into ideological paradigms. At Takimag [link], James E. Miller writes:
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Something Better
James E. Miller
Quibcag: This one I had to assemble. Haruhi of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu) gestures towards a powder keg.